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
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
|
Return-Path: <gsanders87@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FD81BC4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:36:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com
[209.85.212.172])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7C20166
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:36:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wiwl6 with SMTP id l6so64759347wiw.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 05:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=08qilVtlh6KCyIn3Y/UFfSDtXfUyt4urTVqzmonKBwQ=;
b=bC0TFQmHzMHMoNQptI8facHxXNOlT4nig+gJtzlr/J+LA5ThfjlfkIGBRzNasSNEs+
JgWMRq6UzGBq9PWKiVqngQ8iQPgMU3L9PMDzyMTfGpzPSlFiWPQ2WgI2VLml/Ym9cayM
INfFGcJ+2W9yvSkfoUhhNvIj3joGeIuaSRYD0AbW0sA1w4jyGqcIuLpP6ilOMlOl3OVe
xaLjgLUnOZpBw8pG3R+ruM9I571aSvnlxRWXNg2WHECmNy6mWTTINv5WugoK99wfy9Tu
7VfFis+10o4j32KneBZYoXZcW69idPVDbl1WMvFPXS8bhjQhcUcusNFQblM6qmzYwIqk
tq4A==
X-Received: by 10.180.198.10 with SMTP id iy10mr5708376wic.46.1435408573652;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 05:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.41.66 with HTTP; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 05:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150627122558.A196641A3E@smtp.hushmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjOj9eXiDG0F6G54SVKkStF_1HRu2wzGqtFF5X_NAWy4w@mail.gmail.com>
<20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
<CABm2gDr3orTHMN1q8vGmy3NpXWPy5i=zHhGneDGUk=ney3-e+Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20150627120935.GD25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
<20150627121505.6E857417EC@smtp.hushmail.com>
<CAB3F3Ds=_DG0Z75gmMPWJ=YWga61s7zkL+dkhVkuzTqCg6zf_w@mail.gmail.com>
<20150627122558.A196641A3E@smtp.hushmail.com>
From: Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 08:35:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CAB3F3DuL11BaVG5cmJWb3BjjcDuMmm=7JPEdmDE5g8es+JKbgA@mail.gmail.com>
To: NxtChg <nxtchg@hush.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6226d023e57d05197f1a4a
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,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
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
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: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:36:15 -0000
--047d7b6226d023e57d05197f1a4a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>That requires an assumption that all developers are perfectly representing
the whole community.
I'll take that as a "no". But it's a strange bar to set: perfect
representation of entire community. By that token, nobody can say anything
is controversial if a different group is disagreeing.
Greg
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 8:25 AM, NxtChg <nxtchg@hush.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/27/2015 at 3:18 PM, "Greg Sanders" <gsanders87@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Can we agree n-1 dev Nacks would be a controversial hard fork?
>
> That requires an assumption that all developers are perfectly representing
> the whole community.
>
> And no shady lobbying behind the scenes too.
>
>
>
--047d7b6226d023e57d05197f1a4a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">><span style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px">That requ=
ires an assumption that all developers are perfectly representing the whole=
community.</span><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br></s=
pan></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px">I'll take t=
hat as a "no". But it's a strange bar to set: perfect represe=
ntation of entire community. By that token, nobody can say anything is cont=
roversial if a different group is disagreeing.</span></div></div><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra"><br clear=3D"all"><div><div class=3D"gmail_signature">Greg=
</div></div>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 8:25 AM, NxtChg <spa=
n dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:nxtchg@hush.com" target=3D"_blank">nxtc=
hg@hush.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span c=
lass=3D""><br>
On 6/27/2015 at 3:18 PM, "Greg Sanders" <<a href=3D"mailto:gsa=
nders87@gmail.com">gsanders87@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>Can we agree n-1 dev Nacks would be a controversial hard fork?<br>
<br>
</span>That requires an assumption that all developers are perfectly repres=
enting the whole community.<br>
<br>
And no shady lobbying behind the scenes too.<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--047d7b6226d023e57d05197f1a4a--
|
