Message-ID: <558C509D.4010804@thinlink.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:03:57 -0700
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, 
 Raystonn <raystonn@hotmail.com>
References: <COL402-EAS127289185B11D0D58E1F5E6CDAE0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <COL402-EAS127289185B11D0D58E1F5E6CDAE0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process and Votes
Precedence: list

On 6/24/2015 8:00 PM, Raystonn wrote:
>
> > Consensus-code changes are unanimous. They must be.
>
> Excellent. Now we are getting to some actual written rules. How about 
> updating the BIP process documentation with this? Everyone should be 
> able to read the rules of the coin they are buying.
>
> One moment though. Can you tell me how this particular rule came to 
> be? The creator of Bitcoin violated this rule many times. So it must 
> have been adopted after his departure. What process was followed to 
> adopt this new rule? Was there consensus for it at the time? A huge 
> portion of the user community is under the impression that Satoshi's 
> written plans, some of which violate this new rule, will be 
> implemented. So there certainly would not be consensus for this rule 
> today.
>

Great question; very fair.  I, for one, eagerly await Mark's answer.

I hope nobody forgot to tell adversaries totally outside the open source 
ecosystem what the rules for hard forking changes are.

The Chinese miners have it right - we have to work together.  If you 
want to see who's trying, look at who has written a concrete BIP/code 
vs. who hasn't; who has made changes in response to feedback, and who 
hasn't.