MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6DB69CF6-A97C-4E9F-90BE-50DD24EE6113@gmail.com>
References: <CAPWm=eVr9CHPzTvDZC5T9k0jc6gqorXxvNB39dV5ZBcxKAugow@mail.gmail.com>
	<E22C8A75-BE96-4BBE-8211-BD426D874846@gmail.com>
	<6DB69CF6-A97C-4E9F-90BE-50DD24EE6113@gmail.com>
From: Hector Chu <hectorchu@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 22:19:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAO2FKHj=c23fim2Wm4JYwHgCOcP3=A6r9noR-akTQPc9=whTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev list etiquette
Precedence: list

Haha. Reminds me of when I asked Gavin earlier this year about whether
he cared about politics and he replied that he only cared about and
was responsible for the technicals. Little did he know he would
unwittingly become the technical enabler for Mike's political
shenanigans.

On 19 August 2015 at 21:19, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being gover=
ned
> by those who are dumber.
> - Plato
>
> On Aug 19, 2015, at 1:11 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Alex,
>
> With all due respect, right now the biggest challenge facing Bitcoin is n=
ot
> technical but political. I would love to see this list go back to technic=
al
> discussions, but unfortunately, until this political stuff is resolved, e=
ven
> technical discussion is purely philosophical as there=E2=80=99s little ch=
ance of
> actually making good progress on consensus=E2=80=A6which in a space where=
 everything
> depends on consensus pretty much makes everything else moot.
>
> On Aug 19, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> This is a message that I wrote and had hoped that all the core devs would
> sign on to, but I failed to finish organizing it.  So I'll just say it fr=
om
> myself.
>
> There has been a valuable discussion over the last several months regardi=
ng
> a hard fork with respect to block size.  However the sheer volume of emai=
l
> and proportion of discussion that is more philosophical than technical ha=
s
> rendered this list almost unusable for its primary purpose of technical
> discussion related to Bitcoin development.  Many of us share the blame fo=
r
> letting the discourse run off topic to such a degree, and we hope that an
> appeal for individual self restraint will allow this list to return to a
> higher signal-to-noise ratio.
> -Please consider the degree to which any email you send is related to
> technical development before sending it.
> -Please consider how many emails you are sending to this list regarding t=
he
> same topic.
> This list is not appropriate for an endless back and forth debate on the
> philosophical underpinnings of Bitcoin.  Although such a debate may be
> worthwhile it should be taken to another forum for discussion.  Every ema=
il
> you send is received by hundreds of developers who value their time as mu=
ch
> as you value yours.  If your intended audience isn't really the majority =
of
> them, perhaps private communication would be more appropriate.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>