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
|
Return-Path: <peter_r@gmx.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2D85A18
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:27:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3412587
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:27:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.50.29] ([69.50.179.106]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001)
with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MaaOf-1a3CzE3IL3-00KBvY;
Mon, 05 Oct 2015 23:27:34 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com>
In-Reply-To: <1819769.E416F0XigG@garp>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 14:27:30 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9269B3FB-2ED2-469D-9FE2-783CC2EB252C@gmx.com>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
<2081461.sDX5ARzIdv@garp>
<CAAS2fgSsJ10P7YYAAsV4P6no3pC=WYozWuN64u=WLSB3h6cHwA@mail.gmail.com>
<1819769.E416F0XigG@garp>
To: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:ggRu46IhQT5SeAvp/djjvBCxDSIRnhODgtjVRXvDLTQbtqvIL15
4PmIy25fY6NGY+jWlfKra41Y5yBoLKc/5Db3JbyBd+khLi3X7gWV/6PCDhcdK17Zc9EK+Wg
dzxv2u6lQHOUccyV5f50n4zcv/BM9dMuomZnoKiQmGpsz/RjjW/6BqqIGHRWAmO2r/DDNV9
zLm19r+lU2ggxJQiKzJeA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:kPkU/rZARmA=:Xsrd25NNi/ZIK1zpdDZl3x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X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
technical debate
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: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 21:27:37 -0000
> On Oct 5, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Monday 5. October 2015 20.56.34 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> (In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator
>> contributors that disagree).
>=20
> Regular contributor?
>=20
> Please explain how for a fork in the protocol should you only listen =
to=20
> regular Bitcoin Core contributors?
Furthermore, Bitcoin is significantly more than a "software project": it =
sits at a unique intersection of computer science, economics, physics, =
law and more. While I agree that minor bug-fixes and =
code-maintenance-type issues should be dealt with quietly by developers, =
decisions regarding Bitcoin=E2=80=99s governance and its evolution =
should be shaped by an interdisciplinary group of stakeholders from =
across the community. The hard- vs soft-fork debate is not just a code =
maintenance issue. =20
Once again, let=E2=80=99s use the current gridlock in Core to rally the =
growth of new forkwise-compatible implementations of the protocol. =
Gavin and Mike=E2=80=99s initiative with BIP101 and Bitcoin XT should be =
encouraged as one possible model for coming to consensus on hard-forking =
changes. =20
Best regards,
Peter
|
