Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 531381080 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:41:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f50.google.com (mail-vk0-f50.google.com [209.85.213.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E5A61A0 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:41:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f50.google.com with SMTP id e64so103340191vkg.0 for ; Tue, 02 Feb 2016 09:41:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=J+jX31bLJauPmALxew3gUieSMEx4fxzwKcMxBiXR+mE=; b=NOmfK7o+3uQxNu+JxfcEK1kwl6dtREn9vJtTNtMRVPX82ZQr99df4KXV7z1acDyJls nWCNbQRIlqxyOkUX14f81X1vAlbuootsYMV8xKw9AWh1hFSDMfCUff/s38w3PPxuOeDJ 2VD/+qtOsrNjHJb6Y3gEB95KPsp4z45Y/SPPXmLwv0OtEfiBQD1TRUnetCgsKIWuYNWk t7tEHilNAu178ynfh2UUX7peqpukhP1qnwpqH5KQGLwGpBYve0/4i0IHF0MpeTSB3uSD J744xRo5VoyZt89JzXNYpXUqGRiLyWihXXplbB0OpO+y4hfTqccvQHLPi06G4i8tWMKD ZtFw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=J+jX31bLJauPmALxew3gUieSMEx4fxzwKcMxBiXR+mE=; b=fEb3Oeeg/12H56kK9IMJleJs7uXvmcz1TBd5F1KLn9e2KFlEJXizszBd0T/0pcFC7U MMbcUwxDIiXq0lRVnGk9Op91rBN9HhSc8BRcWhO0HG34EwuvC+86pcfEDNLoyCp+P82v lZMjR7kkrUY7+0Hf5ozDzSmY3oJktx6CvaQIDKRVR/dJDghb8360QHSVX14DNfgHWTuR q6dfCS9igYmjIRr5I2xXSTOJVGtNH/Tdii1dYIc7/1vhjd6AbhHLAdeKk82XPlhi/X7m TfHnxp4ceSvjjG/gxKEd2dPnHwK7238RYkq4lfJ3BF2DtjksfVUUo88YAdjs/5SyhfPb 7vWw== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORHvE+/cj3pqxxjltJ0BwNwjIArKazfrpPyxSzk+LKMSWameFNOFzv+5Es6U8H7lr+doyWMjofyQB0Hcw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.1.6 with SMTP id 6mr14337782vkb.139.1454434895238; Tue, 02 Feb 2016 09:41:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.96.210 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 09:41:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20160202173849.GA5096@muck> References: <201601260312.25248.luke@dashjr.org> <201601260323.14993.luke@dashjr.org> <56A79C86.1030902@gmail.com> <20160202170356.GC18604@muck> <20160202173849.GA5096@muck> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 09:41:35 -0800 Message-ID: From: Toby Padilla To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113dc466479c7a052acd0376 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:46:38 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment Protocol 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: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:41:37 -0000 --001a113dc466479c7a052acd0376 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Then the moderation is being unevenly applied. Luke commented against my BIP multiple times right after it was published but it took hours for my responses to go through and I had to track people down on IRC to ask about it: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/thread.html On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:27:58AM -0800, Toby Padilla wrote: > > The mailing list is a problem. I'm still on moderation only. I have no > idea > > if this message will go through and when it will go through. I totally > > understand the desire to keep the conversation level high, but when > people > > who *are* whitelisted can quickly post multiple heated arguments against > > you (publicly) and you can't respond, then that starts to look very > > centralized and discouraging. > > Everyone is on moderation only in this mailing list, myself included. > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > 000000000000000008320874843f282f554aa2436290642fcfa81e5a01d78698 > --001a113dc466479c7a052acd0376 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Then the moderation is being unevenly applied. Luke commen= ted against my BIP multiple times right after it was published but it took = hours for my responses to go through and I had to track people down on IRC = to ask about it:


On Tue, Feb 2, = 2016 at 9:38 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
=
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:= 27:58AM -0800, Toby Padilla wrote:
> The mailing list is a problem. I'm still on moderation only. I hav= e no idea
> if this message will go through and when it will go through. I totally=
> understand the desire to keep the conversation level high, but when pe= ople
> who *are* whitelisted can quickly post multiple heated arguments again= st
> you (publicly) and you can't respond, then that starts to look ver= y
> centralized and discouraging.

Everyone is on moderation only in this mailing list, myself included= .

--
http= s://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000008320874843f282f554aa2436290642fcfa81e5a01d78698

--001a113dc466479c7a052acd0376--