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
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21F5383D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 12:30:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com (mail-wi0-f182.google.com
[209.85.212.182])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35E23149
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 12:30:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicgi11 with SMTP id gi11so50730916wic.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 05:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
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
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=kz/7/CZWfLayb0A6GU2mbB8Wz0pXJlIXVpvu4ci7FGY=;
b=HzFwZjb182ySbn5TUx2gy8WLIRcdhnUBIRaB5bzHRSAMcFEw3MaG5y6e+uz92PaR0+
JyZaROhWqaeK8U2OSO1HZpqa2ndMxVgaxbATqCzwcDHAwEzPBVAlSDy4sygWd5hKX2O8
SceXFxixFvRB8RlNpLmrhpNAZ+PONj8PW3QIzybwhh1urjHne/paaRLG7jPe7kBBY0ty
zi7xaFOjuvnWVxx6xnFLtwRPgVibx10L/lRa4CttmdBUVV7qmJRJz36Q1YgYWlXt8AxV
72C/avnXxZuEoejOAsOTGDEyfGuL1V06NZMZPrXfqXzn5kROs/FL7Rf1G8K+Z7WWhCQ5
zJFQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkGmvJTIptkUQ2bWD7tviGwjR7mLhKgdeU2E6geyZLVfLdQg8GmQlKcGr70d8WHxLnzS0bF
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.92.40 with SMTP id cj8mr12612609wib.92.1435494655666;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 05:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 05:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <558E9C06.9080901@bitcoins.info>
References: <COL402-EAS127289185B11D0D58E1F5E6CDAE0@phx.gbl>
<558B7352.90708@bitcoins.info>
<CABm2gDrCxLyxC=BkgiQOjRczy26kQOZb2+p9xDXOh4HuDG8nRw@mail.gmail.com>
<558D46EC.6050300@bitcoins.info>
<CABm2gDojz6PHdRKxRkMZh-gfYLdcekVfeQMz5r_4EYc-j5tn+w@mail.gmail.com>
<558E9C06.9080901@bitcoins.info>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:30:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpTuEoaXZ_M166UEe+z6t-hq39yJaF3K+aL_Ra836jnSg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process and Votes
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: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 12:30:58 -0000
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info> wrote:
> On 6/27/2015 7:28 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote:
> I have seen things like a Github discussion between 3 or 4 people
> and then Garzik send out a tweet that there is near universal approval fo=
r
> the proposed change as it nobody is allowed to question it. After watchi=
ng
> the github process for a couple years I simply don't trust it because the
> developers in charge have a dictatorial style and they shut out many
> stakeholders instead of soliciting their opinions.
> [...]
>
> I saw this problem first hand when Andreas Antonopolis got into a big
> dispute with some of the core developers over the press contacts. The
> github made up their rules as they went along and simply ignored input fr=
om
> anyone outside their inner circle. Since that time several people have t=
old
> me they dropped out of participating in the github process. The maintain=
ers
> deleted some of my messages and I have been told I am banned form github.
I wasn't asking for an example of something that was rejected, there's
plenty of those.
You were saying people were opposing a change and jgarzik unilaterally adde=
d it.
When did that happen?
> As for your proclamation at Bitcoin core !=3D Bitcoin consensus rules, th=
at is
> simply not true in practice. There is one piece of software with one
> maintainer. If you want it changed you have to convince that one person =
to
> approve the change.
There are many pieces of software and many maintainers, libbitcoin,
for example, is another full node implementation different from
Bitcoin core.
Also, to change Bitcoin core I don't need to convince anyone, I do it
all the time here https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin
> The core developers have the biggest influence by far to decide hard fork
> changes. There is no other place to go. While anyone can fork the code
> someone compare it to the river Thames. if you don't like where the rive=
r
> runs you can dig a new one ... here is a spoon. I can vote in elections =
but
> that does not mean the US government is "decentralized." The core
> maintainer has decided on a hard fork change, he has decided not to do it=
.
Maybe Bitcoin core devs have more influence, but still, they don't
have the power to decide for everyone else what the consensus rules
are.
Your analogy is ridiculous, it literally takes seconds to fork bitcoin
and is as simple as clicking a button.
Wladimir has explained many times that he hasn't decided anything
because he can't decide that.
You keep insisting that he has control over consensus rules. Are you
doing it because you want him to be threaten, tortured, kidnapped or
killed?
If you don't, please stop making false claims about powers he doesn't
have because some bad guy could believe you.
> I am under the
> impression that at least some of the developers (such as Garzik) don't
> actually hold that many bitcoins and don't have a large stake in the syst=
em
> yet they have significant control.
For the last time, they may have control over Bitcoin core (one
implementation of the Bitcoin protocol), not the consensus rules.
Why are anyone's bitcoin holdings relevant in any technical discussion?
Please, keep this kind of offtopic comments out.
> Anyone can attack the system by simply
> hiring a couple core developers and creating the gridlock we see now.
As said several times, yes, it is hard to define "uncontroversial"
without giving veto powers to any random guy on the internet.
But this is clearly not what is happening now. Most Bitcoin core devs
are against the current proposals, that cannot be considered
uncontroversial for any sane definition of it.
|
