1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FE4A1AE1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:36:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out01.mykolab.com (mx01.mykolab.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F80AE1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:36:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101])
by mx-out01.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 515686161E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:35:59 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 19:33 +0100
Message-ID: <10955467.d0sKIOBqLD@garp>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQhWSLSZgNr9rUQ6-iamnh0ZsHdXui59e7xmTa94zYhpw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
<2142297.qudDqxHTIz@garp>
<CAAS2fgQhWSLSZgNr9rUQ6-iamnh0ZsHdXui59e7xmTa94zYhpw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
technical debate
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 18:36:03 -0000
On Monday 5. October 2015 18.04.48 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > Unsuccessfully.
>=20
> I think rather successfully.
Arguing that BIP66 rollout was a full success is in the same park of=20=
"successful" ?
Where for weeks people were told not to trust the longest chain until i=
t was=20
30 blocks.
Lets put that in perspective. The main functionality of Bitcoin =20
Frankly, if that fiasco happened in a company, people would get fired f=
or=20
gross misconduct.
Bottom line is that there is a horrible track record of doing soft fork=
s in=20
the past, there are some really good technical reasons why this should =
not=20
happen again.=20
And the defence against this argument is to do character assassination =
because=20
you think he has ulterior motives? Like you say in this part;
> That Mike himself continues to misexplain
> things is not surprising since he has all but outright said that his
> motivation here is to disrupt Bitcoin in order to try to force his
> blocksize hardfork on people.=20
"all but outright said" is still not said. Is still just a suspicion yo=
u have.=20
And you are accusing a man of something he didn't do.
That=E2=80=99s just not right.
> > The point is that Bitcoin Core claims to have a consensus mechanism=
and
> > sticks to "no change" on not reaching a consensus. And that rule is=
the
> > reason why bigger blocks were blocked for years.
>=20
> You're repeating Mike's claims there-- not anyone elses. Take your
> complaint up with him-- not the list.
There is no complaint. Why do you think there is?
Are you claiming that not reaching consensus is NOT the reason that big=
ger=20
blocks are not in Bitcoin Core?
Reaching consensus is an admirable goal. But its exactly that, a goal.
And anyone that is a perfectionist will know that in the real world goa=
ls are=20
often not reached. That doesn't make them less useful. That makes them =
goals.
This specific goal is in conflict of building a good product and a well=
=20
functioning community.
A good product and a well functioning community needs rules and needs t=
imely=20
decisions and conflict resolution.
It does not need muting of valuable voices, it does not need character=20=
assassinations and it really doesn't need egos.
I suggest reading this book;
http://www.artofcommunityonline.org/
|
