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
|
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 3C2E014F1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:26:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f194.google.com (mail-ig0-f194.google.com
[209.85.213.194])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C103B87
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:26:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igcpb10 with SMTP id pb10so11326886igc.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:26:01 -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=WXakWoyFsFoZu23PNXndv58cfdcpxpiVHvWffPXH3+s=;
b=pJJK0NAkQPHY7UEs9g948Gg7t29ThG30tVTpe6hUNm3Ld4VBDd/shHxfG970znbMpp
cmqMKwXg0ufNldhFBiZYMhhS15S7UE2uGFc7fXMvinsbLQoMRaWhGuGunxX2deq3ScNM
S3hxS2wK5OdDcQ/fjxyn7gK762aE0UrUV65CLq5hUvGPWm3zXi5Efq7iNGSuKOPIO1xy
KfXhb1mZgnrh/48AoFYKC2UE+NaL60K7+8NbxzVJDSypVSGaCz44XH/Y1EnSOxZYjg9y
WGwncm+zvcmr9hThk3pZGfIyplMLxNPUrPMCsNp914jGm4+49cDeCFSAEn/scxYhmoN+
pDlQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.23.80 with SMTP id k16mr12316910igf.62.1444080361328;
Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.19.30 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 14:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1819769.E416F0XigG@garp>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
<2081461.sDX5ARzIdv@garp>
<CAAS2fgSsJ10P7YYAAsV4P6no3pC=WYozWuN64u=WLSB3h6cHwA@mail.gmail.com>
<1819769.E416F0XigG@garp>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:26:01 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRU3D7_9b=4rpG8B3HHnk_80Dw0WJTavvx5+1jFS6ZmEw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
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] 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 21:26:02 -0000
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Monday 5. October 2015 20.56.34 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> (In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator
>> contributors that disagree).
>
> Regular contributor?
>
> Please explain how for a fork in the protocol should you only listen to
> regular Bitcoin Core contributors?
I'm providing some perspective and scope-- referencing again your
comment about following actions-- what element of the many dozens of
responses suggests to you that _anyone_ is not being listened to?
While I'm sure its not intended; your selective editing ends up
butchering the meaning---- I pointed out that there have been
disputes, even ones involving regular contributors (and, implicitly,
that I'm not lying by omission in not mentioning that the dispute was
a joke or from someone well known to attack Bitcoin) or-- in other
words, evidence that the disagreement was not less meaningful than
what you're talking about here. That's all, sorry I was unclear again.
Did you see in my message that I invited you to take a look for
examples-- I think they're easily found and you would find it
informative. I really recommend spending some time looking.
|
