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
|
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 4771ABAC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:13:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com (mail-wg0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D555141
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:13:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wgjx7 with SMTP id x7so12417724wgj.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 04:13:17 -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:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=GcHIAIowd4BrFpdOIDiTGhsQHi+T06YlWvN9HUAjZm8=;
b=NlTwejZFN5OXzs6VPLczV8smYBKQX+I7njg5iFznjInDvWNbhGpGmjeAazzNSILuqR
SR3Leef50zIBhv3a+AmQvoAZf9Dtwr9Rq83xQ8987KRLmItz/YiNM6++auiOSfSJAk2i
RRxhVf32gTlmUgFZVH9O/wec9U73eDBd3wyvDjjHVEyKgHRfisshy/sWwm1d6mHp8Y8c
csuegsImyBl/iqNP77u/4zu/TJrxX7LTLd2ZBB3Uc5WLretZUVlnA3AesxbwQdtOV8vj
3TcZHS17qCy6Jq+rl2mSSDQjNZ4fMXVyhrSVEBN/hapidG4rc2JFHlx3z61MrnrgY3af
MG4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm92vTfT4hM714QXbV77/CYyJnPG3ZOm9ivHjBih1jDddNDcnRgjzKpt1x8cMMjgTWFzw5n
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.120.198 with SMTP id le6mr2039581wjb.133.1435317197542;
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 04:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 04:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <558B7352.90708@bitcoins.info>
References: <COL402-EAS127289185B11D0D58E1F5E6CDAE0@phx.gbl>
<558B7352.90708@bitcoins.info>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:13:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrCxLyxC=BkgiQOjRczy26kQOZb2+p9xDXOh4HuDG8nRw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process and Votes
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: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:13:20 -0000
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info> wrote:
> "Cultish" means making claims without any supporting facts.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info> wrote:
> As for developers, the consensus on code changes are almost never 100% and
> someone has to make the decision about what is an a acceptable consensus.
This statement seems "cultish" by your own definition.
I'm going to make the opposite statement: the consensus on code
changes is almost always 100%.
Mark has already given a couple examples of changes to consensus rules
(the most risky type of change), here's a few thousand other examples
of changes to the bitcoin core's code that had no opposition:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master
Can you please point us to a few examples were changes were made with
opposition to them?
In those cases (which you assure is what happens almost always), would
you say that the result of letting a decider decide instead of fixing
or addressing all the concerns (either by changing the proposed code
or explaining it) better in restrospective?
|
