Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE0981646 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:16:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.help.org (mail.help.org [70.90.2.18]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 816F6EE for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:16:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.1.10.25] (Unknown [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:16:40 -0400 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <2081461.sDX5ARzIdv@garp> <1819769.E416F0XigG@garp> From: Milly Bitcoin Message-ID: <5612E8AA.2000803@bitcoins.info> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:16:26 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1819769.E416F0XigG@garp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 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] 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 21:16:45 -0000 > Regular contributor? > > Please explain how for a fork in the protocol should you only listen to > regular Bitcoin Core contributors? This is an artifact of a small centralized group of developers that wants to hold on to power. This is why there is so much objection to documenting some sort of process since that would highlight issues such as this. Russ