From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 08:14:35 +0100
Message-ID: <2156873.BPPaGcvT6q@garp>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgRU3D7_9b=4rpG8B3HHnk_80Dw0WJTavvx5+1jFS6ZmEw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1819769.E416F0XigG@garp>
	<CAAS2fgRU3D7_9b=4rpG8B3HHnk_80Dw0WJTavvx5+1jFS6ZmEw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
	technical debate
Precedence: list

On Monday 5. October 2015 21.26.01 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
>=20
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Monday 5. October 2015 20.56.34 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> >>  (In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator
> >>=20
> >> contributors that disagree).
> >=20
> > Regular contributor?
> >=20
> > Please explain how for a fork in the protocol should you only liste=
n to
> > regular Bitcoin Core contributors?
>=20
> I'm providing some perspective and scope-- referencing again your
> comment about following actions-- what element of the many dozens of
> responses suggests to you that _anyone_ is not being listened to?

Have you ever been at a meeting where you didn't feel like you were bei=
ng=20
listened to?
You get comments like;
 =ABI respond to the technical arguments not because I believe they are=

 earnestly motivated, but because they provide an avenue for learning f=
or
 myself and others.=BB

 =AB"there is no gridlock here=BB After several respected members state=
d there is
 disagreement.

 =ABThat Mike himself continues to misexplain things is not surprising =
since he
 has all but outright said that =BB[snip]  Which is putting words in th=
e mouth=20
of someone you disagree with.


But what really gives a lot of people here the suggestion that members =
of the=20
community that are against the softfork are not being listened to is th=
e=20
simple undeniable fact that an alternative or a remedy is not even cons=
idered.
There is no code. There is no question posted by the authors which flag=
s to=20
use.

Actions speak much louder than words. Read the topic of this thread!
The actions show a disregard for the many objections.  Consensus is not=
 build=20
by repeating again and again the arguments that you belief will convinc=
e your=20
debate-opponent. It is about reaching a middle ground. If either side o=
f the=20
debate refuses to budge from their position, you have gridlock.

What came of the request made to PeterT to document the risks and requi=
red=20
changes in wallets should this soft fork continue?

Why is it soo bad to use a hardfork (with proper voting) instead of a s=
oftfork=20
that we are in a place that the Bitcoin Core team is willing to throw o=
ut a=20
lot of goodwill and show their true colours in hundreds of mails that l=
eave=20
the opposing side of this debate feeling ignored and left out?


I don't feel specifically unique or special. Nobody needs to reply to t=
his=20
email. I don't claim peoples time.

All I'm doing is spelling out what has been living in the back of my he=
ad, and=20
with me a great deal of others, about how this is playing out.

If you choose to ignore this and you force a softfork, I belief you may=
 be=20
surprised at how many active players in the Bitcoin marketplace may see=
 that=20
the "Bitcoin Core" team is not an ally any longer.
It is good to remember that the graveyards are filled with people that=20=

believed to be unreplaceable.
Bitcoin will go on.

Have a nice day!