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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <tomh@thinlink.com>) id 1Z690K-0003mX-KQ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 20 Jun 2015 02:59:36 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.220.43])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z690I-0000FF-8G
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 20 Jun 2015 02:59:36 +0000
Received: by pacyx8 with SMTP id yx8so96565063pac.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 19:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=8Cefs0pJrweoqm5pU4cuiCtUCyJne7z4cD5/zDSS3tE=;
b=F3I7/V6vhk2sYwj8MyEDern/W5b1IV9WOr/iTy+2pIvDbWegDAD+pM+ecRgPbb8onG
W+CJNECFmWygVs7R2+C1KAcyqyTP/8rUNjSq6t0vCNs0NQrnpNSAo1a/UPGzzFLNBeDe
do3odG8OBbwfzZ73RkyYj1aubyi/tjP4zs2bdz9SsKxgsuy78llQGe5zel354JHyTJOy
kmyywHQDbtGqtqM27cUGxrRK5uaLTbkfh0CntOMh2RwLeozY15Zz+io50J1XgIIhlNmT
+TnBsS6LHW3lWbM/9S1tilGRt2Azofnxh5IYeqMVCPeMfXNWPKo8UU8QFP7on24aL1dE
XJIA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm2QEK0MFxSGuXSq66ce2Y2uBo3p6OMuqtLhg2iMYtixi7eLLf4Qnujz8+BR3fD+ZZeU+JA
X-Received: by 10.68.94.37 with SMTP id cz5mr37537991pbb.70.1434769168453;
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 19:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net.
[99.8.65.117]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id
ks9sm12582267pdb.36.2015.06.19.19.59.26
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 19:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5584D70D.2030104@thinlink.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 19:59:25 -0700
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
References: <CALqxMTGCkTZAs74bXk57L6JWK29Xzbn1ZUkWN_NuBp+EufjEQg@mail.gmail.com> <CALqxMTFx6DF0Re+pCwB1AjYo6eYuKtX1cqUpo=wXmHSOsN74dQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2iGUnU+BKzYOzNZJUPNOU_5d4oU8JRgGLS1iPtz-uRWA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2iGUnU+BKzYOzNZJUPNOU_5d4oU8JRgGLS1iPtz-uRWA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.3 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1Z690I-0000FF-8G
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] improving development model (Re: Concerns
Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other
Developers
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 02:59:36 -0000
On 6/19/2015 6:43 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> No surprise, the position of Blockstream employees is that hard forks
> must never happen and that everyone's ordinary transactions should go
> via some new network that doesn't yet exist.
If my company were working on spiffy new ideas that required a hard fork
to implement, I'd be rather dismayed to see the blocksize hard fork
happen *before those ideas were ready*.
Because then I'd eventually have to convince people that those ideas
were worth a hard fork all on their own. It would be much easier to
convince people to roll them in with the already necessary blocksize
hard fork, if that event could be delayed.
As far as I know, Blockstream representatives have never said that
waiting for other changes to be ready is a reason to delay the blocksize
hard fork. So if this were the real reason, it would suggest they have
been hiding their true motives for making such a fuss about the
blocksize issue.
I've got no evidence at all to support thoughts like this... just the
paranoid mindset that seems to infect a person who gets involved in
bitcoin. But the question is every bit as valid as Adam's query into
your motives.
|
