path: root/1a/a30f07a29706fd95beb3872ef3cfd795f85a4e

Return-Path: <dscotese@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F7AF86
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:37:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com
	[209.85.214.172])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9A7C182
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:37:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by obnw1 with SMTP id w1so130462950obn.3
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
	:from:to:content-type;
	bh=Op0SxnN7LLkn4UWPFsjuVSOMirD1yzMwbGoQc1ia3AU=;
	b=bswI5BFcjyJK6vR6cSnwjfiAlsBXNq5adOrucoDdDCihNeUwNDnpnDq3w0/5GDgks2
	CCsh6XoLJuuSbV0D9i92P6e+q2l4C9pYsH4l+2glHkNEEdAe+yUqEArPSsRpO92PPC6d
	RD2ErmAk10EkYtg5cCOKCDx0kdeAGxVjH0uArrAHPhYTLV3Ni3lIxr1u7L4uMJYYTRie
	tx4QM/Zoj1sSvNzZTwxIbABsux0Qky4+kw6rtJy+RJgdKTaimZ6NdfgWKVZosB6Pvmbw
	e4S9z1PYLrYW1fuqa+N/ruwhVBSU0jc3H9SrLXBf06YC92H3R8k10Xu3kUO2z/hg7tit
	g1lw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.85.106 with SMTP id g10mr4306081oez.53.1439872664947;
	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: dscotese@gmail.com
Received: by 10.202.175.1 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CF039F20-89F1-41E9-97EB-053E7BDF056F@gmail.com>
References: <20150817100918.BD1F343128@smtp.hushmail.com>
	<1439815244.89850.YahooMailBasic@web173102.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
	<20150817133438.DDD4243128@smtp.hushmail.com>
	<CE3B7411-2863-4D6B-85B0-4F28D4D7F391@gmail.com>
	<CF039F20-89F1-41E9-97EB-053E7BDF056F@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:37:44 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: k9TyJRrU9Ox63crnMtNBeeKBb0U
Message-ID: <CAGLBAhe-xUqVoW9peVEXQhutj6HkkTR3cn4w1ci3bW51G991kw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Scotese <dscotese@litmocracy.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b67684cb750c7051d8e7acc
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham
	version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT
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, 18 Aug 2015 04:37:47 -0000

--047d7b67684cb750c7051d8e7acc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Three things:

1) Hostility is generally the result of perceived hostility.  If you assume
the best intentions of another person, you will eventually find yourself in
one of two places.  Either you will find truth with that person (becuase
they are also seeking it), or you will drive them away (because you will
ask questions that can't be answered by someone trying to deceive).

2) The Wiki says "The current Core developers are Wladimir J. van der Laan,
Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Gregory Maxwell, and Pieter Wuille."  I've
seen no hostility from any of these people.

3) The people who are threatened by Bitcoin aren't stupid enough to ignore
#1.  Can anyone imagine that they have not hired highly skilled
psychological warfare agnts to do everything they can to "help" assault
what we decentralization enthusiasts have been working for?

About #2: I'm actually blind to hostility, and that is an intentional
affectation in response to my recognition of #1 and #3 together.  If you
feel another person has expressed a bad idea, just ignore it.  If you feel
they might be misleading others, post a reply about what you know to clear
up any possible misconceptions.  There is no point in identifying
individuals who are being hostile, or pointing out hostility, or being
divisive.  Let the rest of us recognize it on our own.  Maybe send
something like what I'm writing now.

PS: If anyone is interested in conspiracy theories, I had written this into
my gmail compose window and (presumably) hit a wrong key which caused the
thread to be marked as spam and deleted my whole reply.  It hadn't even
saved a draft.  I've never seen gmail not save a draft before.

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I should add that in the interest of peace and goodwill, I extend an offe=
r
> to both Mike and Gavin to make their grievances heard=E2=80=A6but only on=
 the
> condition that we make a good effort to avoid misrepresentation and
> misreading of the other side=E2=80=99s intentions.
>
> On Aug 17, 2015, at 9:37 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 17, 2015, at 6:34 AM, NxtChg via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Great, so how about you go tell theymos to stop censoring XT posts and
> banning the other side on /r/Bitcoin?
>
> Let users decide what Bitcoin is or isn't.
>
>
> FWIW,
>
> I don=E2=80=99t think what theymos did is very constructive.I understand =
his
> position=E2=80=A6but it only hurts the cause, unfortunately - the PR batt=
le is not
> the same thing as a discussion on technical merits. He hurts the PR battl=
e
> and plays into Mike=E2=80=99s hand by doing that. The actual underlying i=
ssue
> actually has little to do with block size - it has to do with Mike and
> Gavin feeling that the core devs are being obstructionist.
>
> Regardless of the technical merits of XT, the fact that we=E2=80=99ve nev=
er done a
> hard fork before, not even for things some other devs have wanted=E2=80=
=A6and not
> due to any malice on anyone=E2=80=99s part but because simply that=E2=80=
=99s just the
> nature of decentralized consensus with well-defined settlement
> guarantees=E2=80=A6this is the problem - Mike and Gavin think they=E2=80=
=99re somehow
> special and their fork should be pushed while the rest of us resist pushi=
ng
> our own controversial pet ideas because we want civility and understand
> that at this stage in Bitcoin=E2=80=99s development trying to fork the bl=
ockchain
> over highly divisive issues is counterproductive and destructive.
>
> But the fact of the matter is that in the PR battle, arguments against th=
e
> fork actually play into Mike=E2=80=99s hand, and that=E2=80=99s the probl=
em.
>
> The whole block size thing is too nuanced and too easily spun
> simplistically. It=E2=80=99s too easy to spin resistance to bigger blocks=
 (even
> though the resistance is actually much more towards untested hardforking
> mechanisms and serious security concerns) as =E2=80=9Cobstructionism=E2=
=80=9D and it=E2=80=99s too
> easy to spin bigger blocks as =E2=80=9Cscalability=E2=80=9D because most =
of the people
> can=E2=80=99t tell the fucking difference.
>
> The fact is most of the people don=E2=80=99t really understand the fundam=
ental
> issue and are taking sides based on charismatic leadership and authority
> which is actually entirely counter to the spirit of decentralized
> consensus. It=E2=80=99s beyond ironic.
>
> If you guys want to win the PR battle, the key is to make it clear that
> you are not obstructionist and are giving everyone equal treatment=E2=80=
=A6Bitcoin
> was designed such that changing the rules is *hard* and this is a feature=
.
> Bitcoin simply does not have a reliable and tested hard forking
> mechanism=E2=80=A6and a hard fork for such a politically divisive issue w=
ill almost
> certainly lead to a lack of cooperation and refusal to work together out =
of
> spite. All of us would like to be able to process more transactions on th=
e
> network. It=E2=80=99s not a matter of whether we think higher capacity is=
 a bad
> thing - it=E2=80=99s more that some of us are concerned that Bitcoin is n=
ot
> sufficiently mature to be able to handle such a schism with so much
> hostility.
>
> Let=E2=80=99s face it, folks - from a PR standpoint, the block size issue=
 is
> irrelevant. Nobody really understands it except for a handful of people -
> I=E2=80=99ve tried to explain it, I=E2=80=99ve even written articles abou=
t it - but most
> people just don=E2=80=99t get it. Most people don=E2=80=99t really get sc=
alability either -
> they seem to think that scalability is just doing the same thing you=E2=
=80=99ve
> always done manyfold.
>
> Block size is an especially dangerous issue politically because it=E2=80=
=99s one
> of those that requires deep understanding yet superficially sounds really
> simple. It=E2=80=99s perfect Dunning-Kruger bait.
>
> So let=E2=80=99s be a little smarter about this.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>


--=20
I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a
techie?
I own Litmocracy <http://www.litmocracy.com> and Meme Racing
<http://www.memeracing.net> (in alpha).
I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist <http://www.voluntaryist.com> which
now accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante <http://dollarvigilante.com/>.
"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi
Nakamoto

--047d7b67684cb750c7051d8e7acc
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Three things:<br><br>1) Hostility is generally the result =
of perceived hostility.=C2=A0 If you assume the best intentions of another =
person, you will eventually find yourself in one of two places.=C2=A0 Eithe=
r you will find truth with that person (becuase they are also seeking it), =
or you will drive them away (because you will ask questions that can&#39;t =
be answered by someone trying to deceive).<br><br>2) The Wiki says &quot;Th=
e current Core developers are Wladimir J. van der Laan, Gavin Andresen, Jef=
f Garzik, Gregory Maxwell, and Pieter Wuille.&quot;=C2=A0 I&#39;ve seen no =
hostility from any of these people.<br><br>3) The people who are threatened=
 by Bitcoin aren&#39;t stupid enough to ignore #1.=C2=A0 Can anyone imagine=
 that they have not hired highly skilled psychological warfare agnts to do =
everything they can to &quot;help&quot; assault what we decentralization en=
thusiasts have been working for?<br><br>About #2: I&#39;m actually blind to=
 hostility, and that is an intentional affectation in response to my recogn=
ition of #1 and #3 together.=C2=A0 If you feel another person has expressed=
 a bad idea, just ignore it.=C2=A0 If you feel they might be misleading oth=
ers, post a reply about what you know to clear up any possible misconceptio=
ns.=C2=A0 There is no point in identifying individuals who are being hostil=
e, or pointing out hostility, or being divisive.=C2=A0 Let the rest of us r=
ecognize it on our own.=C2=A0 Maybe send something like what I&#39;m writin=
g now.<br><br>PS: If anyone is interested in conspiracy theories, I had wri=
tten this into my gmail compose window and (presumably) hit a wrong key whi=
ch caused the thread to be marked as spam and deleted my whole reply.=C2=A0=
 It hadn&#39;t even saved a draft.=C2=A0 I&#39;ve never seen gmail not save=
 a draft before.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmai=
l_quote">On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <sp=
an dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"=
 target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wro=
te:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-=
left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">I=
 should add that in the interest of peace and goodwill, I extend an offer t=
o both Mike and Gavin to make their grievances heard=E2=80=A6but only on th=
e condition that we make a good effort to avoid misrepresentation and misre=
ading of the other side=E2=80=99s intentions.<div><div class=3D"h5"><div><b=
r><div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>On Aug 17, 2015, at 9:37 AM, Eric Lom=
brozo &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:elombrozo@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">elombroz=
o@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br><div><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word=
"><br><div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>On Aug 17, 2015, at 6:34 AM, NxtC=
hg via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.=
org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:=
</div><br><div><span style=3D"font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-sty=
le:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line=
-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-s=
pace:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">Great, so=
 how about you go tell theymos to stop censoring XT posts and banning the o=
ther side on /r/Bitcoin?</span><br style=3D"font-family:Helvetica;font-size=
:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spaci=
ng:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transfor=
m:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><br style=3D"font-family:Helvet=
ica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal=
;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;=
text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style=3D"fon=
t-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;fon=
t-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;t=
ext-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;floa=
t:none;display:inline!important">Let users decide what Bitcoin is or isn&#3=
9;t.</span></div></blockquote></div><br><div>FWIW,</div><div><br></div><div=
><div>I don=E2=80=99t think what theymos did is very constructive.I underst=
and his position=E2=80=A6but it only hurts the cause, unfortunately - the P=
R battle is not the same thing as a discussion on technical merits. He hurt=
s the PR battle and plays into Mike=E2=80=99s hand by doing that. The actua=
l underlying issue actually has little to do with block size - it has to do=
 with Mike and Gavin feeling that the core devs are being obstructionist.</=
div><div><br></div><div>Regardless of the technical merits of XT, the fact =
that we=E2=80=99ve never done a hard fork before, not even for things some =
other devs have wanted=E2=80=A6and not due to any malice on anyone=E2=80=99=
s part but because simply that=E2=80=99s just the nature of decentralized c=
onsensus with well-defined settlement guarantees=E2=80=A6this is the proble=
m - Mike and Gavin think they=E2=80=99re somehow special and their fork sho=
uld be pushed while the rest of us resist pushing our own controversial pet=
 ideas because we want civility and understand that at this stage in Bitcoi=
n=E2=80=99s development trying to fork the blockchain over highly divisive =
issues is counterproductive and destructive.</div><div><br></div><div>But t=
he fact of the matter is that in the PR battle, arguments against the fork =
actually play into Mike=E2=80=99s hand, and that=E2=80=99s the problem.</di=
v><div><br></div><div>The whole block size thing is too nuanced and too eas=
ily spun simplistically. It=E2=80=99s too easy to spin resistance to bigger=
 blocks (even though the resistance is actually much more towards untested =
hardforking mechanisms and serious security concerns) as =E2=80=9Cobstructi=
onism=E2=80=9D and it=E2=80=99s too easy to spin bigger blocks as =E2=80=9C=
scalability=E2=80=9D because most of the people can=E2=80=99t tell the fuck=
ing difference.</div><div><br></div><div>The fact is most of the people don=
=E2=80=99t really understand the fundamental issue and are taking sides bas=
ed on charismatic leadership and authority which is actually entirely count=
er to the spirit of decentralized consensus. It=E2=80=99s beyond ironic.</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>If you guys want to win the PR battle, the key is to=
 make it clear that you are not obstructionist and are giving everyone equa=
l treatment=E2=80=A6Bitcoin was designed such that changing the rules is *h=
ard* and this is a feature. Bitcoin simply does not have a reliable and tes=
ted hard forking mechanism=E2=80=A6and a hard fork for such a politically d=
ivisive issue will almost certainly lead to a lack of cooperation and refus=
al to work together out of spite. All of us would like to be able to proces=
s more transactions on the network. It=E2=80=99s not a matter of whether we=
 think higher capacity is a bad thing - it=E2=80=99s more that some of us a=
re concerned that Bitcoin is not sufficiently mature to be able to handle s=
uch a schism with so much hostility.</div><div><br></div><div>Let=E2=80=99s=
 face it, folks - from a PR standpoint, the block size issue is irrelevant.=
 Nobody really understands it except for a handful of people - I=E2=80=99ve=
 tried to explain it, I=E2=80=99ve even written articles about it - but mos=
t people just don=E2=80=99t get it. Most people don=E2=80=99t really get sc=
alability either - they seem to think that scalability is just doing the sa=
me thing you=E2=80=99ve always done manyfold.</div><div><br></div><div>Bloc=
k size is an especially dangerous issue politically because it=E2=80=99s on=
e of those that requires deep understanding yet superficially sounds really=
 simple. It=E2=80=99s perfect Dunning-Kruger bait.</div></div><div><br></di=
v><div>So let=E2=80=99s be a little smarter about this.</div></div></div></=
blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div><br>__________________________=
_____________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail=
_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr">I like to provide some work at no charge to pr=
ove my value. Do you need a techie?=C2=A0 <br>I own <a href=3D"http://www.l=
itmocracy.com" target=3D"_blank">Litmocracy</a> and <a href=3D"http://www.m=
emeracing.net" target=3D"_blank">Meme Racing</a> (in alpha). <br>I&#39;m th=
e webmaster for <a href=3D"http://www.voluntaryist.com" target=3D"_blank">T=
he Voluntaryist</a> which now accepts Bitcoin.<br>I also code for <a href=
=3D"http://dollarvigilante.com/" target=3D"_blank">The Dollar Vigilante</a>=
.<br>&quot;He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules&quot; -=
 Satoshi Nakamoto</div></div>
</div>

--047d7b67684cb750c7051d8e7acc--