Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 727F2486 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 01:04:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f50.google.com (mail-oi0-f50.google.com [209.85.218.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B64EE157 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 01:04:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by oiew67 with SMTP id w67so92604205oie.2 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:04:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=FbfnMsgCCpNMcHWanVkvkEGVUV6ZYKuAw2hUY0K4mo8=; b=UXtfDatdRm/0SViIIcnuzU4LmRKIUfaq4owRacJUg6JXClayGMB5SCJJH9Qcg26HFZ r9HXf4blfGb8u5MbLc+/eQ5dR3R2LVuTdgHzkhTpRr1q1SbFzCtE/IZv0E3C1Ml2YwNP /k3i3tWt3h7z1SXOB05RJhnQDmAe+Rovf2G151uI2rvB8IIpUaITSjkWQZ9OGAl/iq1z +q0YvCIFIPzpR/5GOoUvPF4hW/nbWtVh5BzxSc/266U0PMRh5lSFCYBC34fINwKMCfQr tdni2u3y+Rzqb6tUKY1X0et4LA3S3XQPTnMqB3tlIRcECv0Pgqf6wI8fmuK9kDvgvtUT pCSw== X-Received: by 10.202.83.66 with SMTP id h63mr7971233oib.119.1439946273091; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:04:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.78.77 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:03:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <6EC9DDF352DC4838AE9B088AB372428A25E1F42A@DS04> <55D1C81D.4070402@olivere.de> <55D24625.40806@olivere.de> <55D38025.4030605@olivere.de> From: Sergio Demian Lerner Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:03:53 -0300 Message-ID: To: Anon Moto Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113de1de1a766b051d9f9ef0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Arnoud Kouwenhoven - Pukaki Corp via bitcoin-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 01:04:34 -0000 --001a113de1de1a766b051d9f9ef0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Just to add some superfluous and unessential spice to this discussion, there were two Satoshi users originally registered in sourceforge, one registered very soon after the other. So I say Satoshi were at least two people, so it may be the case that one Satoshi re-appeared, but the other did not. Ore maybe one Satoshi is for Bitcoin XT, and the other Satoshi is against it. Satoshi wars! On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Anon Moto via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > And this is how the powers that be compromise bitcoin. They can't stop > TCP/IP, but they sure can take over the development team. It's a good thing > that no one from the CIA has had any conversations with anyone from the > bitcoin development team. Phew... > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Am 18.08.2015 um 11:15 schrieb Warren Togami Jr.: >> > I honestly don't understand your position, but I get the sense that you >> > are suggesting Satoshi wouldn't be welcome to return if he wanted to be >> > active in development again? >> >> Who am I? Personally I have zero objection if the creator steps in. I >> think he would be highly welcome by the most people. At first I had the >> impression that the email was a fake, but maybe I was wrong. At the >> moment I think: Maybe it's even the best if we do not know exactly >> whether it was Satoshi or not. >> >> Unanimity is mission critical for Bitcoin and must be an absolute >> priority. If not the vast majority is in favor for a fork, then the fork >> should be avoided until a consensus is found. Even if it takes until the >> cows come home. >> >> But it is very likely now that it will come to a fork. No matter which >> site will win, this will produce a lot of humiliated people at the end. >> That's not good and leads to bitterness on both sites. >> >> - oliver >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > --001a113de1de1a766b051d9f9ef0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Just to add some superfluous and unessential spice to this= discussion, there were two Satoshi users originally registered in sourcefo= rge, one registered very soon after the other. So I say Satoshi were at lea= st two people, so it may be the case that one Satoshi re-appeared, but the = other did not.=C2=A0

Ore maybe one Satoshi is for Bitcoin XT, = and the other Satoshi is against it.

Satoshi wars!=


On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Anon Moto via bitcoin-= dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
And this is h= ow the powers that be compromise bitcoin. They can't stop TCP/IP, but t= hey sure can take over the development team. It's a good thing that no = one from the CIA has had any conversations with anyone from the bitcoin dev= elopment team. Phew...


On Tue, Aug 18, = 2015 at 11:57 AM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev <bit= coin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Am 18.08.2015 um 11:15 schrieb Warren Togami Jr.:
> I honestly don't understand your position, but I get the sense tha= t you
> are suggesting Satoshi wouldn't be welcome to return if he wanted = to be
> active in development again?

Who am I? Personally I have zero objection if the creator steps in. = I
think he would be highly welcome by the most people. At first I had the
impression that the email was a fake, but maybe I was wrong. At the
moment I think: Maybe it's even the best if we do not know exactly
whether it was Satoshi or not.

Unanimity is mission critical for Bitcoin and must be an absolute
priority. If not the vast majority is in favor for a fork, then the fork should be avoided until a consensus is found. Even if it takes until the cows come home.

But it is very likely now that it will come to a fork. No matter which
site will win, this will produce a lot of humiliated people at the end.
That's not good and leads to bitterness on both sites.

- oliver


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a113de1de1a766b051d9f9ef0--