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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1Z4ov3-0002iC-3Z
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 16 Jun 2015 11:20:41 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.170 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.170; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f170.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com ([209.85.213.170])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z4ov2-0000xA-9v
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 16 Jun 2015 11:20:41 +0000
Received: by igbsb11 with SMTP id sb11so11501893igb.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 16 Jun 2015 04:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.8.4 with SMTP id oq4mr2159073icb.64.1434453635045; Tue,
16 Jun 2015 04:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.50.118.8 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 04:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABaSBawXZDcyR96g4hBNAiFRDpTcUJX+bMXyqGeuY5wVm4k1KQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALqxMTGBt7MNs5YWf8QzKe+4Fr-uKVimf8=VbytBANEDm=s50g@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP31AEson9DZ=ZU7d4t=DvmGodh1ja6EaZ6xQZ3bFEXeVA@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTFC7zBN9GvHAZLQj4SbXjzkCAM9meSErd3qn7uCoON98Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP148U0V7bU-u0tOTk2xWwq5wy-yU-jk805DcU_3cBHtnw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABaSBawXZDcyR96g4hBNAiFRDpTcUJX+bMXyqGeuY5wVm4k1KQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:20:34 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: wv_kB4KJBcpv5ZQAmCUy1vvA4kE
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2USM4pT1qFV28O2usPaBbOF6NiaXpEdACztCi1ZTwx7A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec516235d5d223c0518a0c3a4
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Z4ov2-0000xA-9v
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] questions about bitcoin-XT code fork &
non-consensus hard-fork
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 11:20:41 -0000
--bcaec516235d5d223c0518a0c3a4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi Bryan,
Specifically, when Adam mentioned your conversations with non-technical
> people, he did not mean "Mike has talked with people who have possibly not
> made pull requests to Bitcoin Core, so therefore Mike is a non-programmer".
>
Yes, my comment was prickly and grumpy. No surprises, I did not sleep well
last night.
I am upset about this constant insistence from Adam, Gregory and others
that the "technical community" or "technical majority" agree with them and
anyone who doesn't is "non technical" or "not a contributor" or not an
expert or not had things properly explained to them.
This is not true and needs to stop. Gavin and I have both been working on
Bitcoin in substantial ways for longer than Gregory and Adam have been in
the community at all. We are extremely technical, as are many of the people
who want us to release XT+larger blocks. We cannot make progress in any
kind of negotiation if one side constantly blows off the other and refuses
to take anything they say seriously, which has been a feature of this
"debate" from the start.
In contrast Gavin and I have written vast amounts of analysis on the
concerns raised by larger blocks. So many hours were spent, we could
probably fill a small book by now. We have carefully read and addressed
*dozens* of points raised by the 1mb camp. We have also done our best to
open this debate to the whole community.
So it would be nice if the people who are so keen on 1mb blocks show the
same respect to us.
--bcaec516235d5d223c0518a0c3a4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi Bryan,<div><br></div><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_extra"><div>Specifically, when Adam mentioned your conver=
sations with non-technical people, he did not mean "Mike has talked wi=
th people who have possibly not made pull requests to Bitcoin Core, so ther=
efore Mike is a non-programmer".</div></div></div></blockquote><div><b=
r></div><div>Yes, my comment was prickly and grumpy. No surprises, I did no=
t sleep well last night.</div><div><br></div><div>I am upset about this con=
stant insistence from Adam, Gregory and others that the "technical com=
munity" or "technical majority" agree with them and anyone w=
ho doesn't is "non technical" or "not a contributor"=
; or not an expert or not had things properly explained to them.</div><div>=
<br></div><div>This is not true and needs to stop. Gavin and I have both be=
en working on Bitcoin in substantial ways for longer than Gregory and Adam =
have been in the community at all. We are extremely technical, as are many =
of the people who want us to release XT+larger blocks. We cannot make progr=
ess in any kind of negotiation if one side constantly blows off the other a=
nd refuses to take anything they say seriously, which has been a feature of=
this "debate" from the start.</div><div><br></div><div>In contra=
st Gavin and I have written vast amounts of analysis on the concerns raised=
by larger blocks. So many hours were spent, we could probably fill a small=
book by now. We have carefully read and addressed <i>dozens</i>=C2=A0of po=
ints raised by the 1mb camp.=C2=A0We have also done our best to open this d=
ebate to the whole community.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>So it would be=
nice if the people who are so keen on 1mb blocks show the same respect to =
us.</div></div></div></div></div>
--bcaec516235d5d223c0518a0c3a4--
|
