path: root/c6/caef50869ce0cf064f744825a1ac212020cb0d

Return-Path: <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4628A9F2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:07:30 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com (mail-wg0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA1F1126
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:07:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wgbhy7 with SMTP id hy7so52332066wgb.2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 24 Jun 2015 22:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type; bh=uRx6627/JMqXnaJEzHI0fqzzWqg9AjOD1hW67yuS6nY=;
	b=yNyPIN2OtNofeK4k5jGSv9xvyW0ET7ZeymC2X/jwUrYiyfFDT/ZdEfSoRlkFbBQbCk
	PA3YxlO/OnRxJZqaMrxY8J9shb5KOv5bOy1f/RaBlIqPb4fk2vZCHkUiS6YZamyTrX5V
	ys078FdM2hQRyqUeOw2mCmo8TVRSvPSlJR5MRVLh55PrDm+weO8vVsZDhNA5kPnf3Emy
	gT/BiS7TUi4JoO468tIoFc1eCbja3nl+/oGzZlMDDG3qFjkJ9DHzhK4DEVZ04C6haaX/
	6XptzPoahmw5p11ExlCww6sJOXDGlu83mOjmSZiLQJHiw7nWVfRnTPPJdliIA222ND4z
	j7qw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.58.7 with SMTP id m7mr73972626wjq.109.1435208846982;
	Wed, 24 Jun 2015 22:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.176.2 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 22:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <558B68C3.9050608@bitcoins.info>
References: <COL402-EAS109000AAC490BCF2DD69116CDAF0@phx.gbl>
	<558B4632.8080504@bitcoins.info>
	<CAOG=w-sxovqy0kDyBX=cx4CWWb=cd_F5bO3iH8ZBHsa0D_uK+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<558B68C3.9050608@bitcoins.info>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 22:07:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CADm_WcZ+5z-7KDsOaNunSWAROoJEsDSEAFZ-d2C6cZBrQTkBcw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86cf3e80c1e005195099ff
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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
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: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:07:30 -0000

--047d7b86cf3e80c1e005195099ff
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Ladies & gents, please do not feed the troll.  This has been explained to
Milly multiple times in the past, on previous mailing list & github with no
impact.


On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info> wrote:

>  I'm sorry but that is the kind of defensive, cultish response everyone
> gets when they ask that question.  If you had a well constructed documented
> process then you would be able to point to it ... but you can't.  While
> there are a few bits and pieces scattered  about in different places there
> is no coherent plan or process.
>
> It is easy to make statements like "consensus must be unanimous" but the
> issue is that you never have true 100% consensus yet you have to move
> forward in some fashion and everyone has to run software with the same
> consensus rules.  The issue is how you move forward is the question that
> nobody wants to answer because (a) it is a hard question to answer and (b)
> developers see it as a threat to their authority/position.  If people just
> keep shutting down the discussion with a bunch of cultish stock answers
> then you are never going to move forward with developing some kind of
> process.
>
> From what I can see much of the discussion is personality-driven and not
> based on Computer Science or and defined process.  The issue is that a
> personality has changed so the process is perceived to be different and
> some people want to hard fork.  Previously, the cultish answer is that
> Bitcoin development is decentralized because people can fork the code.  Now
> that some developers want to fork the code suddenly it is a big problem.
> Is forking the code part of the consensus process or is it the work of the
> devil?   The fact that there is so much diverse opinion on this shows a
> defined process has never been fully vetted or understood.
>
> I have worked on these processes for many years for projects orders of
> magnitudes larger than Bitcoin.  I can absolutely assure you the current
> mishmash does not scale and huge amounts of time are wasted.  That should
> be readily apparent from the recent discussions and the recent concern it
> has caused from people outside the developer's inner circle.
>
> Lack of defined process = high risk and wasted effort.
>
> Russ
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/24/2015 9:50 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
>
>   I'm sorry but this is absolutely not the case, Milly. The reason that
> people get defensive is that we have a carefully constructed process that
> does work (thank you very much!) and is well documented. We talk about it
> quite often in fact as it is a defining characteristic of how bitcoin is
> developed which differs in some ways from how other open source software is
> developed -- although it remains the same in most other ways.
>
>  Changes to the non-consensus sections of Bitcoin Core tend to get merged
> when there are a few reviews, tests, and ACKs from recognized developers,
> there are no outstanding objections, and the maintainer doing the merge
> makes a subjective judgement that the code is ready.
>
>  Consensus-changes, on the other hand, get merged into Bitcoin Core only
> after the above criteria are met AND an extremely long discussion period
> that has given all the relevant stakeholders a chance to comment, and no
> significant objections remain. Consensus-code changes are unanimous. They
> must be.
>
>  The sort of process that exists in standards bodies for example, with
> working groups and formal voting procedures, has no place where changes
> define the nature and validity of other people's money. Who has the right
> to reach into your pocket and define how you can or cannot spend your
> coins? The premise of bitcoin is that no one has that right, yet that is
> very much what we do when consensus code changes are made. That is why when
> we make a change to the rules governing the nature of bitcoin, we must make
> sure that everyone is made aware of the change and consents to it.
>
>  Everyone. Does this work? Does this scale? So far, it does.
> Uncontroversial changes, such as BIP 66, are deployed without issue. Every
> indication is that BIP 66 will complete deployment in the very near future,
> and we intend to repeat this process for more interesting changes such as
> BIP65: CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.
>
>  This isn't about no one stepping forward to be the "decider." This is
> about no one having the right to decide these things on the behalf of
> others. If a contentious change is proposed and not accepted by the process
> of consensus, that is because the process is doing its job at rejecting
> controversial changes. It has nothing to do with personality, and
> everything to do with the nature of bitcoin itself.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Milly Bitcoin < <milly@bitcoins.info>
> milly@bitcoins.info> wrote:
>
>> I have seen this question asked many times.  Most developers become
>> defensive and they usually give a very vague 1-sentence answer when this
>> question is asked.  It seems to be it is based on personalities rather than
>> any kind of definable process.  To have that discussion the personalities
>> must be separated out and answers like "such-and-such wouldn't do that"
>> don't really do much to advance the discussion.  Also, the incentive for
>> new developers to come in is that they will be paid by companies who want
>> to influence the code and this should be considered (some developers take
>> this statement as an insult when it is just a statement of the incentive
>> process).
>>
>> The other problem you are having is the lead developer does not want to
>> be a "decider" when, in fact, he is a very significant decider.  While the
>> users have the ultimate choice in a practical sense the chief developer is
>> the "decider."  Now people don't want to get him upset so nobody wants to
>> push the issue or fully define the process.  Now you are left with a
>> broken, unwritten/unspoken process.  While this type of thing may work with
>> a small group of developers businesses/investors looking in from the
>> outside will see this as a risk.
>>
>> Until you get passed all the personality-based arguments you are going to
>> have a tough time defining a real process.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/24/2015 7:41 PM, Raystonn wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to start a civil discussion on an undefined, or at least
>>> unwritten, portion of the BIP process.  Who should get to vote on approval
>>> to commit a BIP implementation into Bitcoin Core?  Is a simple majority of
>>> these voters sufficient for approval?  If not, then what is?
>>>
>>> Raystonn
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--047d7b86cf3e80c1e005195099ff
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Ladies &amp; gents, please do not feed the troll.=C2=A0 Th=
is has been explained to Milly multiple times in the past, on previous mail=
ing list &amp; github with no impact.<div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gma=
il_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:34 PM, M=
illy Bitcoin <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:milly@bitcoins.info" t=
arget=3D"_blank">milly@bitcoins.info</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;=
padding-left:1ex">
 =20
   =20
 =20
  <div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" text=3D"#000000">
    <div>I&#39;m sorry but that is the kind of
      defensive, cultish response everyone gets when they ask that
      question.=C2=A0 If you had a well constructed documented process then
      you would be able to point to it ... but you can&#39;t.=C2=A0 While t=
here
      are a few bits and pieces scattered=C2=A0 about in different places
      there is no coherent plan or process.<br>
      <br>
      It is easy to make statements like &quot;consensus must be unanimous&=
quot;
      but the issue is that you never have true 100% consensus yet you
      have to move forward in some fashion and everyone has to run
      software with the same consensus rules.=C2=A0 The issue is how you mo=
ve
      forward is the question that nobody wants to answer because (a) it
      is a hard question to answer and (b) developers see it as a threat
      to their authority/position.=C2=A0 If people just keep shutting down
      the discussion with a bunch of cultish stock answers then you are
      never going to move forward with developing some kind of process.=C2=
=A0
      <br>
      <br>
      From what I can see much of the discussion is personality-driven
      and not based on Computer Science or and defined process.=C2=A0 The
      issue is that a personality has changed so the process is
      perceived to be different and some people want to hard fork.=C2=A0
      Previously, the cultish answer is that Bitcoin development is
      decentralized because people can fork the code.=C2=A0 Now that some
      developers want to fork the code suddenly it is a big problem.=C2=A0=
=C2=A0
      Is forking the code part of the consensus process or is it the
      work of the devil?=C2=A0=C2=A0 The fact that there is so much diverse
      opinion on this shows a defined process has never been fully
      vetted or understood.<br>
      <br>
      I have worked on these processes for many years for projects
      orders of magnitudes larger than Bitcoin.=C2=A0 I can absolutely assu=
re
      you the current mishmash does not scale and huge amounts of time
      are wasted.=C2=A0 That should be readily apparent from the recent
      discussions and the recent concern it has caused from people
      outside the developer&#39;s inner circle.=C2=A0 <br>
      <br>
      Lack of defined process =3D high risk and wasted effort.<br>
      <br>
      Russ<div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
      <br>
      <br>
      <br>
      <br>
      On 6/24/2015 9:50 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:<br>
    </div></div></div><div><div class=3D"h5">
    <blockquote type=3D"cite">
      <div dir=3D"ltr">
        <div>
          <div>
            <div>I&#39;m sorry but this is absolutely not the case, Milly.
              The reason that people get defensive is that we have a
              carefully constructed process that does work (thank you
              very much!) and is well documented. We talk about it quite
              often in fact as it is a defining characteristic of how
              bitcoin is developed which differs in some ways from how
              other open source software is developed -- although it
              remains the same in most other ways.<br>
              <br>
            </div>
            Changes to the non-consensus sections of Bitcoin Core tend
            to get merged when there are a few reviews, tests, and ACKs
            from recognized developers, there are no outstanding
            objections, and the maintainer doing the merge makes a
            subjective judgement that the code is ready.<br>
            <br>
          </div>
          Consensus-changes, on the other hand, get merged into Bitcoin
          Core only after the above criteria are met AND an extremely
          long discussion period that has given all the relevant
          stakeholders a chance to comment, and no significant
          objections remain. Consensus-code changes are unanimous. They
          must be.<br>
          <br>
        </div>
        <div>The sort of process that exists in standards bodies for
          example, with working groups and formal voting procedures, has
          no place where changes define the nature and validity of other
          people&#39;s money. Who has the right to reach into your pocket
          and define how you can or cannot spend your coins? The premise
          of bitcoin is that no one has that right, yet that is very
          much what we do when consensus code changes are made. That is
          why when we make a change to the rules governing the nature of
          bitcoin, we must make sure that everyone is made aware of the
          change and consents to it.<br>
          <br>
        </div>
        <div>Everyone. Does this work? Does this scale? So far, it does.
          Uncontroversial changes, such as BIP 66, are deployed without
          issue. Every indication is that BIP 66 will complete
          deployment in the very near future, and we intend to repeat
          this process for more interesting changes such as BIP65:
          CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.<br>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>This isn&#39;t about no one stepping forward to be the
          &quot;decider.&quot; This is about no one having the right to dec=
ide
          these things on the behalf of others. If a contentious change
          is proposed and not accepted by the process of consensus, that
          is because the process is doing its job at rejecting
          controversial changes. It has nothing to do with personality,
          and everything to do with the nature of bitcoin itself.<br>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>
          <div>
            <div>
              <div>
                <div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br>
                  <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:07
                    PM, Milly Bitcoin <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mail=
to:milly@bitcoins.info" target=3D"_blank"></a><a href=3D"mailto:milly@bitco=
ins.info" target=3D"_blank">milly@bitcoins.info</a>&gt;</span>
                    wrote:<br>
                    <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I
                      have seen this question asked many times.=C2=A0 Most
                      developers become defensive and they usually give
                      a very vague 1-sentence answer when this question
                      is asked.=C2=A0 It seems to be it is based on
                      personalities rather than any kind of definable
                      process.=C2=A0 To have that discussion the
                      personalities must be separated out and answers
                      like &quot;such-and-such wouldn&#39;t do that&quot; d=
on&#39;t really
                      do much to advance the discussion.=C2=A0 Also, the
                      incentive for new developers to come in is that
                      they will be paid by companies who want to
                      influence the code and this should be considered
                      (some developers take this statement as an insult
                      when it is just a statement of the incentive
                      process).<br>
                      <br>
                      The other problem you are having is the lead
                      developer does not want to be a &quot;decider&quot; w=
hen, in
                      fact, he is a very significant decider.=C2=A0 While t=
he
                      users have the ultimate choice in a practical
                      sense the chief developer is the &quot;decider.&quot;=
=C2=A0 Now
                      people don&#39;t want to get him upset so nobody want=
s
                      to push the issue or fully define the process.=C2=A0
                      Now you are left with a broken, unwritten/unspoken
                      process.=C2=A0 While this type of thing may work with=
 a
                      small group of developers businesses/investors
                      looking in from the outside will see this as a
                      risk.<br>
                      <br>
                      Until you get passed all the personality-based
                      arguments you are going to have a tough time
                      defining a real process.<br>
                      <br>
                      Russ
                      <div>
                        <div><br>
                          <br>
                          <br>
                          <br>
                          <br>
                          <br>
                          On 6/24/2015 7:41 PM, Raystonn wrote:<br>
                          <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin=
:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
                            I would like to start a civil discussion on
                            an undefined, or at least unwritten, portion
                            of the BIP process.=C2=A0 Who should get to vot=
e
                            on approval to commit a BIP implementation
                            into Bitcoin Core?=C2=A0 Is a simple majority o=
f
                            these voters sufficient for approval?=C2=A0 If
                            not, then what is?<br>
                            <br>
                            Raystonn<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
                            bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
                            <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda=
tion.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
                            <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/ma=
ilman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
                            <br>
                          </blockquote>
                          <br>
                          <br>
_______________________________________________<br>
                          bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
                          <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
                          <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://list=
s.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                    </blockquote>
                  </div>
                  <br>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </div></div></div>

<br>_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--047d7b86cf3e80c1e005195099ff--