From: Santino Napolitano <santino.napolitano@yandex.com>
Envelope-From: santino-napolitano@yandex.com
To: Steven Pine <steven.pine@gmail.com>, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAjy6kC_Je-Gcgvadtr-9+GBYid7ifQ8=DM_XEc7u6ATkka_-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgQ3Qs=s7qwhxjwJa9cLJLMJg+LXjPQDCGUDMEjyrHqO_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1489086.kGfJeeyi4a@garp>
	<CAAS2fgSyWaRfXHKWZYzZ4X8ksMECaO47dTXum67XwpTTYnbDXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAjy6kC_Je-Gcgvadtr-9+GBYid7ifQ8=DM_XEc7u6ATkka_-g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <791141444076880@web10g.yandex.ru>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 23:28:00 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
	technical debate
Precedence: list

While this isn't really the place to discuss it, I respectfully disagree. Mike appears to be making a point concerning Bitcoin protocol authorship and on the perceived value of soft-forks. It doesn't look like simple trolling to me. Mike and Gregory are both extremely intelligent and well-versed in Bitcoin and both should be listened to earnestly and equally while receiving our full professional respect.

At this stage it's becoming readily apparent to at least me (and without putting words into his mouth it would seem Gavin has experienced a similar realisation; please correct if I'm mistaken) that Bitcoin protocol authorship and individual implementation development need to be separated asap. I have no suggestions for the structure of this separation but as soon as it happens the better, IMO. It's likely messages like this would then no longer be seen on this list and Bitcoin Core developers could focus on their implementation's development free from distraction while other implementers and Core developers could discuss protocol issues in a more relevant forum in a more civilized and constructive manner.

05.10.2015, 23:05, "Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> šIt's pretty clear Mike has turned intoš concern troll and bully. He insults people, mischaracterizes others, quibbles over words and definitions and has stated numerous times in other forums he has no interest in building consensus changes he doesn't agree with himself.
>
> šHe's lost his integrity and trust and why the core developers waste their time with his antics is beyond me, let Mike fork Bitcoin, develop XT, and ignore his input on core unless some XT feature is deemed good enough to incorporate, that is how a thousand other open source projects deal with trolls like Mike.
>
> šOn Oct 5, 2015 3:41 PM, "Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> šOn Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
>> š<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> šIt is an eloquent change, but not really the topic we were discussing. It also
>>> šmakes you attack Mike (calling him out as having a strawman) without basis.
>>> šFor the second time in this thread.
>>> šI would suggest arguing on the topic, not on the man.
>>
>> šSuch a shame you appear to reserve that wisdom for those you disagree
>> šwith, biting your tongue when others emit all forms of ad hominem--
>> šsuch as suggesting we've spent less volunteer time on Bitcoin and thus
>> šour opinion has less merit (or that we haven't written certian kinds
>> šof software (even when, ironically, we have!), and thus our opinion
>> šdoesn't have merit, and so on). I think everyone would benefit from
>> šit, especially as that kind of correction is best received from
>> šsomeone who agrees with you.
>>
>> šIn this case, I think, however your correction is also misplaced at
>> šleast on this message; though I would otherwise welcome it.š I'm not
>> šcomplaining about the man; but pointing out the behavior of stating an
>> šopinion no one as held as theirs and attacking it is not a productive
>> šway to hold a discussion. It's an argument or a behavior, not a
>> šperson, and beyond calling it bad I attempted to explaining (perhaps
>> špoorly) why its bad.
>>
>> šWhat Sergio is saying is not the same; Mike argued some established
>> šcriteria existed where it didn't-- and I was pointing that out; and
>> štalking about how the situation here is not very similar to the one
>> šthat Mike was trying to draw a parallel to. I enumerated a number of
>> šspecific reasons why this is the case. If the differences between
>> šSergio's comments and mine are still unclear after this clarification,
>> šI'd be glad to talk it through with you off-list-- in spite of your
>> š(welcome) compliments, communication is just fundamentally difficult,
>> šand no amount eloquence changes that. If there is continued
>> šmisunderstanding, I do not doubt its my fault; but it's probably not a
>> šgood use of hundreds/thousands of people's time for you to help me
>> šinteractively improve my explanation on list. :)
>> š_______________________________________________
>> šbitcoin-dev mailing list
>> šbitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> šhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> š,
>
> š_______________________________________________
> šbitcoin-dev mailing list
> šbitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> šhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev