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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAAF168
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:59:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lb0-f176.google.com (mail-lb0-f176.google.com
[209.85.217.176])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 108DEEA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:59:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lbbpu9 with SMTP id pu9so119609306lbb.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 01:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc
:content-type;
bh=m+Ncf/hFdZ6kVjvauMfzsdEzgp7PjPqPsONRUUQdbCA=;
b=QBwbxMTW82D6MP7+v9rDpOpaLYLUNWvtRnkejqYh15Kpody13h+uitF6bffeWGH/zb
+8UNZ63rl6Kr9u0NIDc+S66iM9IoXQ+kwBewUco/nSYvnYiGthlECT87dA4J3nw9qWVK
BPlbfTE954/qk6jNKDza1JHOn277jy57T9BAySy/BN/Mgpe5oIIf+HcwLmp8xUHqpONZ
aWcNLBzwavnvbUYmGHCHg9nZXzDgL8ntUvCto+/gGxGax3hdO+cuSPDd3zWm0anIeBTN
byIgvErMgU+OekDxLdz3zbAGBpPz9+PgvwQH1o3PT1MICEU6PoZZ6agji55IR7zBuMhL
Cyuw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm8ACiWyyFlcVXMNHznCvnwU2d8VgjdMG5MdU3Am294fYHNS5zGPoaLCO4W+mtREa3KHveu
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.156.168 with SMTP id wf8mr10345730lbb.114.1439974793252;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 01:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 01:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:59:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpYdBjyCB=Dor0eE-FdPv9PbVXzWyJf0BPyQ4SDm9VznQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re:
Bitcoin XT Fork)
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: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:59:55 -0000
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I see no problem with Satoshi returning to participate in peer review.
> Bitcoin development has long since migrated from a single authority figure
> to a system of technical peer review consensus. What is more of a problem is
> this list has degenerated to a generalised discussion forum where any
> academic or technical debate is drowned out by noise.
>
> I joined this list so I keep be abreast of bitcoin's technical development
> and proposals. I am sure many ecosystem stakeholders and participants also
> once used this list to keep abreast of technical developments and academic
> research. It would be splendid indeed if we could return to some semblance
> of decorum that once existed.
>
> Do you think we could have a "bitcoin-discuss" list where specifically
> non-technical discussion can happen leaving this list for more academic and
> technical debate together with setting a clear mandate about what is on
> topic for this list?
Apparently that existed already: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/
But technical people run away from noise while non-technical people
chase them wherever their voices sounds more loud.
One thing that I would like though, is separating Bitcoin
Core-specific development from general bips and consensus discussions.
I know, the bitcoin-consensus mailing list will probably still be
noisy, but at least we will have a non-noisy one and the ability to
say things like "Bitcoin Core's default policy is off-topic in
bitcoin-consensus" in the noisy one...
Also developers of alternative implementations may not be interested
in Bitcoin Core-specific things, so they may want to subscribe to
bitcoin-consensus and unsubscribe from bitcoin-dev.
I already told this to some people and everybody seemed to be positive
about this change, at most sometimes skeptics about the potential
benefits.
Thoughts?
|
