MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <558B7352.90708@bitcoins.info>
References: <COL402-EAS127289185B11D0D58E1F5E6CDAE0@phx.gbl>
	<558B7352.90708@bitcoins.info>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:13:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrCxLyxC=BkgiQOjRczy26kQOZb2+p9xDXOh4HuDG8nRw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process and Votes
Precedence: list

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info> wrote:
> "Cultish" means making claims without any supporting facts.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info> wrote:
> As for developers, the consensus on code changes are almost never 100% and
> someone has to make the decision about what is an a acceptable consensus.

This statement seems "cultish" by your own definition.
I'm going to make the opposite statement:  the consensus on code
changes is almost always 100%.
Mark has already given a couple examples of changes to consensus rules
(the most risky type of change), here's a few thousand other examples
of changes to the bitcoin core's code that had no opposition:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master

Can you please point us to a few examples were changes were made with
opposition to them?
In those cases (which you assure is what happens almost always), would
you say that the result of letting a decider decide instead of fixing
or addressing all the concerns (either by changing the proposed code
or explaining it) better in restrospective?