1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <xgrodx@gmail.com>) id 1Z4chj-0003tf-Mb
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 15 Jun 2015 22:18:07 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.178 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.178; envelope-from=xgrodx@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f178.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com ([209.85.214.178])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z4chi-0004l3-8v
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 15 Jun 2015 22:18:07 +0000
Received: by obbgp2 with SMTP id gp2so74098965obb.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.60.60.131 with SMTP id h3mr13368176oer.73.1434406680862;
Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: xgrodx@gmail.com
Received: by 10.202.95.133 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABaSBawXZDcyR96g4hBNAiFRDpTcUJX+bMXyqGeuY5wVm4k1KQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALqxMTGBt7MNs5YWf8QzKe+4Fr-uKVimf8=VbytBANEDm=s50g@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP31AEson9DZ=ZU7d4t=DvmGodh1ja6EaZ6xQZ3bFEXeVA@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTFC7zBN9GvHAZLQj4SbXjzkCAM9meSErd3qn7uCoON98Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP148U0V7bU-u0tOTk2xWwq5wy-yU-jk805DcU_3cBHtnw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABaSBawXZDcyR96g4hBNAiFRDpTcUJX+bMXyqGeuY5wVm4k1KQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Faiz Khan <faizkhan00@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:17:20 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8V1M9eDiYINi1uvB5VKFVFPr62Q
Message-ID: <CALx=ga7axVzUvpUd5Fvr=UruzUZWhXqJ7ibCEzjrRC-58gSWjw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149bb24ad339d051895d4f0
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(faizkhan00[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Z4chi-0004l3-8v
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] questions about bitcoin-XT code fork &
non-consensus hard-fork
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 22:18:07 -0000
--089e0149bb24ad339d051895d4f0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I'm quite puzzled by the response myself, it doesn't seem to address some
of the (more serious) concerns that Adam put out, the most important
question that was asked being the one regarding personal ownership of the
proposed fork:
"How do you plan to deal with security & incident response for the duration
you describe where you will have control while you are deploying the
unilateral hard-fork and being in sole maintainership control?"
I do genuinely hope that whomever (now and future) wishes to fork the
protocol reconsider first whether they are truly ready to test/flex their
reputation/skills/resources in this way... Intuitively, to me it seems
counterproductive, and I don't fully believe it is within a single
developer's talents to manage the process start-to-finish (as it is
non-trivial to hard-fork successfully, others have rehashed this in other
threads)...
That being said I think it appropriate if Adam's questions were responded
in-line when Mike is feeling up to it. I think that the answers are
important for the community to hear when such a drastic change is being
espoused.
Faiz
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>
>> Re: anyone who agrees with noted non-programmers Mike&Gavin must be
>> non-technical, stupid, uninformed, etc .... OK, go ahead and show them the
>> error of their ways. Anyone can write blogs.
>>
>
> I worry that if this is the level of care you take with reading and
> (mis)interpreting Adam's messages, that you might not be taking extreme
> care with evaluating consensus changes, even while tired or sleeping. I
> encourage you to evaluate both messages and source code more carefully,
> especially in the world of bitcoin. However, this goes for everyone and not
> just you. Specifically, when Adam mentioned your conversations with
> non-technical people, he did not mean "Mike has talked with people who have
> possibly not made pull requests to Bitcoin Core, so therefore Mike is a
> non-programmer". Communication is difficult and I can understand that, but
> we really have to be more careful when evaluating each other's messages;
> technical miscommunication can be catastrophic in this context. On the
> topic of whether you are a programmer, I suspect that ever since you built
> CIA.vc we have all known you're a programmer, Mike.
>
> - Bryan
> http://heybryan.org/
> 1 512 203 0507
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
> --
>
> My regards,
>
> Faiz Khan
>
> <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>
--089e0149bb24ad339d051895d4f0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">I'm quite puzzled by the response myself, it doesn'=
;t seem to address some of the (more serious) concerns that Adam put out, t=
he most important question that was asked being the one regarding personal =
ownership of the proposed fork:<div><br></div><div>"How do you plan to=
deal with security & incident response for the duration you describe w=
here you will have control while you are deploying the unilateral hard-fork=
and being in sole maintainership control?"</div><div><br></div><div>I=
do genuinely hope that whomever (now and future) wishes to fork the protoc=
ol reconsider first whether they are truly ready to test/flex their reputat=
ion/skills/resources in this way... Intuitively, to me it seems counterprod=
uctive, and I don't fully believe it is within a single developer's=
talents to manage the process start-to-finish (as it is non-trivial to har=
d-fork successfully, others have rehashed this in other threads)...=C2=A0</=
div><div><br></div><div>That being said I think it appropriate if Adam'=
s questions were responded in-line when Mike is feeling up to it. I think t=
hat the answers are important for the community to hear when such a drastic=
change is being espoused.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Faiz</div></div><=
div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 15, 20=
15 at 4:56 PM, Bryan Bishop <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:kanzure=
@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">kanzure@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px =
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Mike Hearn <span =
dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@p=
lan99.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(20=
4,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Re: anyone who ag=
rees with noted non-programmers Mike&Gavin must be non-technical, stupi=
d, uninformed, etc .... OK, go ahead and show them the error of their ways.=
Anyone can write blogs.</div><div></div></blockquote></div><br><div>I worr=
y that if this is the level of care you take with reading and (mis)interpre=
ting Adam's messages, that you might not be taking extreme care with ev=
aluating consensus changes, even while tired or sleeping. I encourage you t=
o evaluate both messages and source code more carefully, especially in the =
world of bitcoin. However, this goes for everyone and not just you. Specifi=
cally, when Adam mentioned your conversations with non-technical people, he=
did not mean "Mike has talked with people who have possibly not made =
pull requests to Bitcoin Core, so therefore Mike is a non-programmer".=
Communication is difficult and I can understand that, but we really have t=
o be more careful when evaluating each other's messages; technical misc=
ommunication can be catastrophic in this context. On the topic of whether y=
ou are a programmer, I suspect that ever since you built CIA.vc we have all=
known you're a programmer, Mike.<br></div><div><br></div><div>- Bryan<=
br><a href=3D"http://heybryan.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://heybryan.org/<=
/a><br><a href=3D"tel:1%20512%20203%200507" value=3D"+15122030507" target=
=3D"_blank">1 512 203 0507</a></div>
</div></div>
<br>-----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------<br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/=
listinfo/bitcoin-development<br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_signature"><br><div><span style=3D"border-collapse:collapse;fo=
nt-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><font color=3D"#999999">My regar=
ds,</font></span></div><div><br></div><div><span style=3D"border-collapse:c=
ollapse;font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><font color=3D"#999999=
"><div>Faiz Khan</div><div><br></div></font></span></div></div>
</a></blockquote></div><div><br></div></div>
--089e0149bb24ad339d051895d4f0--
|
