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
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4124B86
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:18:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f182.google.com (mail-ig0-f182.google.com
[209.85.213.182])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA42310D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:18:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igxp17 with SMTP id p17so61125797igx.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
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=0ZSrfDFjK4JSp8jOMdHPklOPwmusw+MnpooVn+mqtqU=;
b=U3KyzqSfe8GHBNxp+k9rj28e1CdIPfGDmQ2VjnLYpOou7MF+duIT6JLiuiLxR5KC+u
URor18xeSBB660Wu4djl+hcrPGWFm7+W0xuyuTBSFqjl9IwqH3XkeHCPH4nSUpg1imJH
FKbVvK72PJcIX7DrT7d9bXXBQsp4eoq8YLjZ4Y4GwiGU6qb/3tG8xG0TDwWBLNBfTkUs
UfUhgWTxC34mn1ME9EQgrjRwN7Ee7zIvhbAztYUocnyX3uh9Vq+EoyYoW96UE6ZtWkcG
94Kx+rOcYS42Qi52GsqvteOx5oqWPnGHRBtkh2Cbg2ogEOXgQSKcPZEJSq/+IBf7t/3g
ixUA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.61.195 with SMTP id s3mr17692746igr.62.1439831882365;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.14.136 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55D1CAAF.6010400@olivere.de>
References: <6EC9DDF352DC4838AE9B088AB372428A25E1F42A@DS04>
<55D1C81D.4070402@olivere.de>
<CABm2gDrQTSyJUDWzO5FEy8GD76+coN7tM--8rhC7i0vfmUf0Qw@mail.gmail.com>
<55D1CAAF.6010400@olivere.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:18:02 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgT1VxNCaVy=xqU5SCNn_f1k071V26wy5-v2t7qxHW6=3A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Oliver Egginger <bitcoin@olivere.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
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: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <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, 17 Aug 2015 17:18:03 -0000
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> To avoid such discussions.
You seem to be assuming that there is specific reason to believe the
message is unauthentic. This is not the case.
Contrary to other poster's claims, if the message had been PGP signed
that might, in fact, have arguably been weak evidence that it was
unauthentic: no message from the system's creator that I (or
apparently anyone) was aware of was ever signed with that key.
The headers on the message check out. The mail server in question is
also not an open relay. At the moment the only reason I have to doubt
the authenticity of it is merely the fact that it exists after so much
air silence, but that isn't especially strong.
In the presence of doubt, it's better to take it just for its content.
And on that front it is more on-topic, civil, and productively
directed than a substantial fraction of new messages on the list. I
certainly do not see a reason to hide it.
A focus on the content is especially relevant because one of the core
messages in the content is a request to eschew arguments from
authority; which is perhaps the greatest challenge here: How can the
founder of a system speak up to ask people to reject that kind of
argument without implicitly endorsing that approach through their own
act?
This whole tangest is a waste of time. If you believe the message is
unauthentic or not the best response is the same as if it is
authentic. Focus on the content. If its worth responding to, do. If
it's not don't. Then move on with life.
|
