To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <0119661e-a11a-6d4b-c9ec-fd510bd4f144@gmail.com>
	<CAGL6+mHQZ3UP10msk65OO+Uk0hn7j+dkmJap_M7FgWfSZaYYJQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<f79b9693-b8a5-c496-9dd9-d74704855d0e@gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgSEZDmgGBxB-ZNqC0NpWQCJSL9xnbaNQFud=sW0Fdgu8w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e226ba27-5f5e-f4d5-8d2d-9b4206a27d05@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 18:27:56 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSEZDmgGBxB-ZNqC0NpWQCJSL9xnbaNQFud=sW0Fdgu8w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap
Precedence: list

On 7/11/2017 5:31 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> I wrote the roadmap to try to be representative of a Core / developer
>> position.
> A fine intention, but I've checked with many of the top contributors
> and it sounds like the only regular developer you spoke with was
> Luke-Jr.  Next time you seek to represent someone you might want to
> try talking to them!
That is false. I could provide a list of names but I'm really not sure
what would be gained as result. You yourself admit that it is an
excellent list of research, almost all which you support directly.

So I think your only real objection is that I didn't talk to you
specifically.

>> I am philosophically against hard forks, but HFs were in the end
>> of the previous roadmap so I felt it should stay. And, I felt that if =
I
> I think the project is not philosophically against hardforks, at least
> not in an absolute sense.
That is why I included them despite being personally against them.
> But if you were instead to talk about things like fixing timewarp,
> recovering header bits, etc. It would clearly be the other way.
It links to bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io , which I assumed would
contain the hard fork wishlist somewhere, but perhaps it does not.

> In any case, I think it's safe to say that people's opinions on
> hardforks are complicated. And all the smoke right now with unusually
> poorly executed proposals probably clouds clear thinking.

Yes, of course. But is your position that if something is complicated we
should not try to clarify it?