1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2B6FA71
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 6 Oct 2015 07:17:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out02.mykolab.com (mx01.mykolab.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6E2D219
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 6 Oct 2015 07:17:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101])
by mx-out02.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A55926145B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 6 Oct 2015 09:17:34 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 08:14:35 +0100
Message-ID: <2156873.BPPaGcvT6q@garp>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgRU3D7_9b=4rpG8B3HHnk_80Dw0WJTavvx5+1jFS6ZmEw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
<1819769.E416F0XigG@garp>
<CAAS2fgRU3D7_9b=4rpG8B3HHnk_80Dw0WJTavvx5+1jFS6ZmEw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
technical debate
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 07:17:42 -0000
On Monday 5. October 2015 21.26.01 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
>=20
> <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
> >>=20
> >> contributors that disagree).
> >=20
> > Regular contributor?
> >=20
> > Please explain how for a fork in the protocol should you only liste=
n to
> > regular Bitcoin Core contributors?
>=20
> I'm providing some perspective and scope-- referencing again your
> comment about following actions-- what element of the many dozens of
> responses suggests to you that _anyone_ is not being listened to?
Have you ever been at a meeting where you didn't feel like you were bei=
ng=20
listened to?
You get comments like;
=ABI respond to the technical arguments not because I believe they are=
earnestly motivated, but because they provide an avenue for learning f=
or
myself and others.=BB
=AB"there is no gridlock here=BB After several respected members state=
d there is
disagreement.
=ABThat Mike himself continues to misexplain things is not surprising =
since he
has all but outright said that =BB[snip] Which is putting words in th=
e mouth=20
of someone you disagree with.
But what really gives a lot of people here the suggestion that members =
of the=20
community that are against the softfork are not being listened to is th=
e=20
simple undeniable fact that an alternative or a remedy is not even cons=
idered.
There is no code. There is no question posted by the authors which flag=
s to=20
use.
Actions speak much louder than words. Read the topic of this thread!
The actions show a disregard for the many objections. Consensus is not=
build=20
by repeating again and again the arguments that you belief will convinc=
e your=20
debate-opponent. It is about reaching a middle ground. If either side o=
f the=20
debate refuses to budge from their position, you have gridlock.
What came of the request made to PeterT to document the risks and requi=
red=20
changes in wallets should this soft fork continue?
Why is it soo bad to use a hardfork (with proper voting) instead of a s=
oftfork=20
that we are in a place that the Bitcoin Core team is willing to throw o=
ut a=20
lot of goodwill and show their true colours in hundreds of mails that l=
eave=20
the opposing side of this debate feeling ignored and left out?
I don't feel specifically unique or special. Nobody needs to reply to t=
his=20
email. I don't claim peoples time.
All I'm doing is spelling out what has been living in the back of my he=
ad, and=20
with me a great deal of others, about how this is playing out.
If you choose to ignore this and you force a softfork, I belief you may=
be=20
surprised at how many active players in the Bitcoin marketplace may see=
that=20
the "Bitcoin Core" team is not an ally any longer.
It is good to remember that the graveyards are filled with people that=20=
believed to be unreplaceable.
Bitcoin will go on.
Have a nice day!
|
