Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com>
In-Reply-To: <1819769.E416F0XigG@garp>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 14:27:30 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9269B3FB-2ED2-469D-9FE2-783CC2EB252C@gmx.com>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<2081461.sDX5ARzIdv@garp>
	<CAAS2fgSsJ10P7YYAAsV4P6no3pC=WYozWuN64u=WLSB3h6cHwA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1819769.E416F0XigG@garp>
To: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
	technical debate
Precedence: list

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Monday 5. October 2015 20.56.34 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> (In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator
>> contributors that disagree).
>=20
> Regular contributor?
>=20
> Please explain how for a fork in the protocol should you only listen =
to=20
> regular Bitcoin Core contributors?

Furthermore, Bitcoin is significantly more than a "software project": it =
sits at a unique intersection of computer science, economics, physics, =
law and more.  While I agree that minor bug-fixes and =
code-maintenance-type issues should be dealt with quietly by developers, =
decisions regarding Bitcoin=E2=80=99s governance and its evolution =
should be shaped by an interdisciplinary group of stakeholders from =
across the community.  The hard- vs soft-fork debate is not just a code =
maintenance issue. =20

Once again, let=E2=80=99s use the current gridlock in Core to rally the =
growth of new forkwise-compatible implementations of the protocol.  =
Gavin and Mike=E2=80=99s initiative with BIP101 and Bitcoin XT should be =
encouraged as one possible model for coming to consensus on hard-forking =
changes. =20

Best regards,
Peter