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 ) 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 ; 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: References: From: Faiz Khan Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:17:20 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8V1M9eDiYINi1uvB5VKFVFPr62Q Message-ID: To: Bryan Bishop 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 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Mike Hearn 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 > > --089e0149bb24ad339d051895d4f0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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:

"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?"

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

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

Faiz
<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">
On Mon, Jun 15, 20= 15 at 4:56 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@p= lan99.net> wrote:
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.

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.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------

_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/= listinfo/bitcoin-development

--

My regar= ds,

Faiz Khan


--089e0149bb24ad339d051895d4f0--