Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6317A88 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:33:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail148095.authsmtp.com (outmail148095.authsmtp.com [62.13.148.95]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A045717E for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:33:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c247.authsmtp.com (mail-c247.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.247]) by punt22.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id v1ECXLLh009471; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:33:21 GMT Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com [52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id v1ECXJ3U021853 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:33:19 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B20C640092; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:33:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EECC12023C; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 07:33:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 07:33:17 -0500 From: Peter Todd To: Staf Verhaegen , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: <20170214123317.GA8613@savin.petertodd.org> References: <201702030024.10232.luke@dashjr.org> <1486828666.21100.115.camel@stafverhaegen.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1486828666.21100.115.camel@stafverhaegen.be> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Server-Quench: c48971bb-f2b1-11e6-bcdf-0015176ca198 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aAdMdwYUHlAWAgsB AmEbWlZeU157W2M7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq T0pMXVMcUgQdcnR7 BXseUBh6cgYIfXt3 ZwgxWnhSW0UoJ1sr QBxVCGwHMGF9OjNL Bl1YdwJRcQRMLU5E Y1gxNiYHcQ5VPz4z GA41ejw8IwAXGxxP T0QnDGonCW0MGzsh QREeDH0EGkseSiMo MgduFFkAHUAeen4j KkcsXDp/ X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1038:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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] [Pre-BIP] Community Consensus Voting System X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:33:23 -0000 --UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Staf Verhaegen via bitcoin-dev wr= ote: > Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev schreef op vr 03-02-2017 om 16:57 [-0800]: > > Personally I think once the blocksize arguments are solved, there will > > be no more contentious changes for this voting system to deal with. > > What other contentious issues have come up in the past 3 years or so > > that wasn't blocksize/scaling related? Do other protocols like TCP/IP > > and the HTTP protocol have developers arguing every day over issues no > > one can agree on? >=20 > Yes, DRM for example. =2E..and note how, like blocksize, the roots of the DRM argument at W3C are= n't a technical disagreement, but rather a political disagreement. --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYovkJAAoJECSBQD2l8JH7J2AH/jEzfNiiNadffW8qMKUtHzYk omQwh4gIe8k0UUm8cW6AB2h0+Z2/7n/+K5L8V/+GcJ6ONTmrNZkRTB3YHgYq39mC Bc2i1tG/XwA/xvo+mOSYTcNwkA0cSjl/SiDUUvqUBOvQMNB5lJbEXx2kjbCNdf+2 sn2aYvp2FM6/3JHx/L6/ZIGT/AdPOkI4zIsb+Go3No28HS5dl886R05ItNg0e6HF DiTnQJ32Ywsotd2OCsO+Q1g0yEi8tq7h5mMubBIL8K0AaohqgZ9czbHnS5v0Js+8 6EwKFC5vhiSwT2SK9L+GYtLqsnlEe9aTJmP8nFUWp1RxTPZ5Cbe8WhcGv5ypa30= =+2Zm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2--