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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <milly@bitcoins.info>) id 1Z5bVw-0002hR-8W
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:14:00 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitcoins.info
designates 70.90.2.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=70.90.2.18;
envelope-from=milly@bitcoins.info; helo=mail.help.org;
Received: from mail.help.org ([70.90.2.18])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z5bVv-0002ai-Bd
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:14:00 +0000
Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA
; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:13:51 -0400
Message-ID: <5582E025.7000704@bitcoins.info>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:13:41 -0400
From: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net>
<CANEZrP3M7+BsZKLFZV-0A_fC7NmMGbTDxsx3ywru3dSW78ZskQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20150618111407.GA6690@amethyst.visucore.com>
<CAPg+sBj_go==m6-++sA53imYdz4OLH4bkyiuAyEM8YR8CaTd=w@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP04SUHShoqUkA3aSs3yEP3GSsZ_3ZOGFXyJfNve5KTPfA@mail.gmail.com>
<20150618140544.GA7674@amethyst.visucore.com>
<5582DB62.8000700@bitcoins.info>
<CAJHLa0NuUXbf=-4wRKQH3GMzSttLnGiWJA79dGSgN8zywY8mUA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0NuUXbf=-4wRKQH3GMzSttLnGiWJA79dGSgN8zywY8mUA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1Z5bVv-0002ai-Bd
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 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: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:14:00 -0000
>Impacts, yes, decider, no. Multiple ACKs are required from developers
who will not act if the community will disagree with the change.
>The users ultimately choose by deciding which software to download,
and that dictates the range of choices available.
That is what I mean by a cultish reply. Just saying the users
ultimately decide is not an adequate explanation of the situation. You
are talking hard fork if someone doesn't like it. If 10% of the users
don't like there is nothing they can do unless they want to operate an
altcoin. You are not going to resolve anything by repeating these types
of replies that really have no applicability in the real world. The
person who approves the pull request (no matter what the process is
beforehand) is effectively the decider.
Also, as pointed out, there is no real process in place. Making
offhand statements that "multiple ACKs are required" without describing
a real process just sends people down a rat hole like this block size
debate. Providing these (non) answers instead of developing a real
process is why there is so much contention now.
Russ
|
