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
|
Return-Path: <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96188B5C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:52:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com
[209.85.212.179])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19F5E90
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:52:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so125686119wic.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 05 Oct 2015 10:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=6jy+88yRV8/fuuMZHH0hSqFGyJeXZJkKwKL9Xb8s8IQ=;
b=t01YNSGaDWOnGZLx35sn9il6FYGPPgPaPDK4YZW/nO2Jho1kXyAJOOH3vr8EVW2vaj
etlkZ+xNf6xMV/eFuq+x9OvG22R1FhfM0R/vgUSoJtIJywHzAjTebO1+ZFs5N32SwuD/
LfEpjNZ2Xy1yAvY0HTk8oYDGtSij3mLXnM8B4kEZgzC4cI+g3y+9R7uACcYpQoxoVy8T
jjydMxV9BAK9rUdUAJueklCVfeAQHVJGFdCqLBlNFSWVadmRt9V7ZCherlqb5lrpJ5rT
SyN+0Eed0i/EyH6Fad13ydLO5yt/zdQ42gr7fon2J73LxNPlcGudVZoqIcFQSZBFAxNA
FTVA==
X-Received: by 10.194.174.227 with SMTP id bv3mr35301414wjc.142.1444067564795;
Mon, 05 Oct 2015 10:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.21.200 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 10:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2142297.qudDqxHTIz@garp>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMzvMLTu8pmOVVJfg5xUWHMWiAcAUJXig2B=qX9Oimu+vGw@mail.gmail.com>
<2142297.qudDqxHTIz@garp>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:52:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CADJgMzu3oNzyc9AONzPZwH4maxbwV+rZny54JTf06CFLyvjj3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d0f9a3b3ae605215f2ea0
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM,
HK_RANDOM_FROM,
HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:52:46 -0000
--089e013d0f9a3b3ae605215f2ea0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> History has shown that for many decision making processes this doesn't
> work,
> and this argument has been made to Core.
> Until today this was essentially a rule that hurt the things that Mike was
> really passionate about.
> Today this hurts the things that some other devs are passionate about.
>
If you are referring to some of Mike's PRs that were either refused or
reverted, it was because they where substantial technical objections to
them. This isn't even in the same ballpark.
Surely you see the absurdity of arguing against soft forks after we
successfully used them already for BIP34 and BIP66?
--089e013d0f9a3b3ae605215f2ea0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On M=
on, Oct 5, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank=
">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width=
:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex">History has shown that for many decision making processes this doesn=
't work,<br>
and this argument has been made to Core.<br>
Until today this was essentially a rule that hurt the things that Mike was<=
br>
really passionate about.<br>
Today this hurts the things that some other devs are passionate about.<br><=
/blockquote><div><br></div><div>If you are referring to some of Mike's =
PRs that were either refused or reverted, it was because they where substan=
tial technical objections to them. This isn't even in the same ballpark=
.</div><div><br></div><div>Surely you see the absurdity of arguing against =
soft forks after we successfully used them already for BIP34 and BIP66?=C2=
=A0<br></div><div>=C2=A0<br></div><div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>=
</div></div></div>
--089e013d0f9a3b3ae605215f2ea0--
|
