Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 937C51678 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:11:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx-out03.mykolab.com (mx01.mykolab.com [95.128.36.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AA2311A for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:11:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com X-Spam-Score: -2.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101]) by mx-out03.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E433207DF for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 23:11:20 +0200 (CEST) From: Tom Zander To: Bitcoin Dev Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 22:08:23 +0100 Message-ID: <1819769.E416F0XigG@garp> In-Reply-To: References: <2081461.sDX5ARzIdv@garp> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 21:11:24 -0000 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). Regular contributor? Please explain how for a fork in the protocol should you only listen to regular Bitcoin Core contributors?