path: root/75/51d42631c3e3451483521872957270a8f467cd

Return-Path: <s7r@sky-ip.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31530982
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:51:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outbound.mailhostbox.com (outbound.mailhostbox.com
	[162.222.225.9])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14776149
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:51:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [0.0.0.0] (HabitedSerfdom.tor-exit.sec.gd [85.17.172.161])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: s7r@sky-ip.org)
	by outbound.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CEA021A12E5;
	Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:51:37 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sky-ip.org;
	s=20110108; t=1435240299;
	bh=wCgqSzTFOGBnK4o2Nw9f6BeQx5Tds00XMClyv620oI4=;
	h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
	b=J4DGv197+1tTOeMf0dZzYzbYUdhk9xq5YTfDGkPxrNEF4QDtpPvg7A/L1PkwFA8JV
	8xTuPYEATe2TMuHfg0KoGfjgT1iKG6BMbsGWku+n0oqOcH9Bgn71Mz9LB7t0tdFbRT
	wmaph7pMt9dXrvBX5Lz85qy/kbY/kFp533H67Zm0=
Message-ID: <558C0765.1070402@sky-ip.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:51:33 +0300
From: s7r <s7r@sky-ip.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
References: <COL402-EAS109000AAC490BCF2DD69116CDAF0@phx.gbl>
	<558B4632.8080504@bitcoins.info> <558C03F1.70603@sky-ip.org>
	<53DED62D-6645-464A-998F-C31464FD0C1A@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53DED62D-6645-464A-998F-C31464FD0C1A@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CMAE-Score: 0
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=csZm6AMi c=1 sm=1 tr=0
	a=wrI726UtqBC9qs0gpWFT8w==:117 a=wrI726UtqBC9qs0gpWFT8w==:17
	a=-NIMs_s3AAAA:8 a=QrohdLjRRo4A:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=bvjBBkZ6AAAA:8
	a=NEAV23lmAAAA:8 a=ag1SF4gXAAAA:8 a=7R7k5UN1o_sdpBYFxvcA:9
	a=exMlYn3ZaqTFf-hq:21 a=XqtZYpbQeU0xqPxe:21 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10
	a=vlnTKxGs3H4A:10
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 172.18.214.92
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no
	version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process and Votes
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: s7r@sky-ip.org
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:51:43 -0000

+1 for Wladimir, as I said. Anyone who checks the commit history on
github can see that he decides quite well all the time for code changes.
These fake arguments are thrown by people who hope they will force him
into deciding for consensus / protocol changes. This won't happen.

On 6/25/2015 4:41 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
> Wladimir is doing an amazing job under difficult circumstances. Give the guy a break, please.
> 
> - Eric Lombrozo
> 
>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 6:36 AM, s7r <s7r@sky-ip.org> wrote:
>>
>> I guess you mean Wladimir here. You are wrong, Wladimir does decide and
>> if you look at the commit history on github.com for bitcoin core you
>> will see, that he does actually decide and does it really good.
>>
>> He just does not want to decide (and he really should not) on CONSENSUS
>> changes or protocol changes. This is totally different.
>>
>> Stop the analogy with "other open source projects". This is an open
>> source project (the code part) but unlike any other open source projects
>> which can just be forked, without affecting the other users, in bitcoin
>> we need all the users to trust a single blockchain, so it'll have value.
>> If some users fork the blockchain and change consensus rules, they are
>> not just harming themselves, they are affecting ALL the users, since
>> such a thing would have strong impact over the BTC/FIAT rate, affecting
>> everyone in the ecosystem. There is economics involved here and human
>> element, things which are hard to fix via code, even if the code is
>> developed in open source style.
>>
>> It's one thing to decide to merge some patches, improve the code, etc.
>> and another thing to decide for consensus rules when you literary play
>> with 4 billion united states dollars of other people's money. This
>> shouldn't be Wladimir's responsibility, it's just unfair for people to
>> throw this on his shoulders.
>>
>> I do not under any circumstances suggest that the consensus should
>> remain as it is now forever. We need to improve it, but this should not
>> be on the maintainer. I've seen smart suggestions on this mail list
>> where consensus changes can be made during a long period of time,
>> through soft forks, where all users/miners/exchangers/merchants get the
>> chance to choose / take action.
>>
>> On 6/25/2015 3:07 AM, Milly Bitcoin wrote:
>>> I have seen this question asked many times.  Most developers become
>>> defensive and they usually give a very vague 1-sentence answer when this
>>> question is asked.  It seems to be it is based on personalities rather
>>> than any kind of definable process.  To have that discussion the
>>> personalities must be separated out and answers like "such-and-such
>>> wouldn't do that" don't really do much to advance the discussion.  Also,
>>> the incentive for new developers to come in is that they will be paid by
>>> companies who want to influence the code and this should be considered
>>> (some developers take this statement as an insult when it is just a
>>> statement of the incentive process).
>>>
>>> The other problem you are having is the lead developer does not want to
>>> be a "decider" when, in fact, he is a very significant decider.  While
>>> the users have the ultimate choice in a practical sense the chief
>>> developer is the "decider."  Now people don't want to get him upset so
>>> nobody wants to push the issue or fully define the process.  Now you are
>>> left with a broken, unwritten/unspoken process.  While this type of
>>> thing may work with a small group of developers businesses/investors
>>> looking in from the outside will see this as a risk.
>>>
>>> Until you get passed all the personality-based arguments you are going
>>> to have a tough time defining a real process.
>>>
>>> Russ
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/24/2015 7:41 PM, Raystonn wrote:
>>>> I would like to start a civil discussion on an undefined, or at least
>>>> unwritten, portion of the BIP process.  Who should get to vote on
>>>> approval to commit a BIP implementation into Bitcoin Core?  Is a
>>>> simple majority of these voters sufficient for approval?  If not, then
>>>> what is?
>>>>
>>>> Raystonn
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>