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
|
Return-Path: <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8522610CC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Oct 2015 23:18:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com
[209.85.220.44])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17B2EAF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Oct 2015 23:18:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pacfv12 with SMTP id fv12so193624494pac.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:date:to:message-id;
bh=L8VJd5M3BeUcLIsBn9sDjrCBNKDhf7orTqmaZ1vSkMk=;
b=rx7Zo/onVLTX3JnOV5aAnoABaEdfj5QP+pfQ9n10BNQnHL/8jJzp6RW5dEhexEZbn1
jedX20bRhwoaj78HcBBTuxgsNJbMdkH4piEzgZI3nnpg3gs+PuvSd4T5Tz2tHfm1U5p/
r2jd4n8I9RSb7xngZsVAws3pVlJemR+0UmgyshEbt0dWyyrsva0tZ6U1phWi2C3+TTvy
KLp4/pwT/uy7T+sPlyKRRWJSY3+l8UZHEQOIAV/KGYFKahhUt8SDq/lgQFKj5qoD2JY3
I5sViLqQ2nhpRYnpZWEnC8nSp/Hc6bst4hE27hxmoUz4/7e92wEBXTGh8dxoXUXxR3SZ
UZiA==
X-Received: by 10.68.234.200 with SMTP id ug8mr43483672pbc.13.1444087094744;
Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com.
[76.167.237.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
tp6sm29578901pbc.81.2015.10.05.16.18.13
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----YDBUJLN64BWVMADQEHCOGQJF0ITCN8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:18:12 -0700
To: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>,
Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <82F8B78A-2031-4ADE-B882-DBE68D5AD7AD@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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
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 23:18:15 -0000
------YDBUJLN64BWVMADQEHCOGQJF0ITCN8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=UTF-8
I agree with you, Sergio, up until the part about someone having won a battle. There's a difference between sincere technical objections and someone just being a dick. I think in this case this line has been crossed (and I don't think I'm alone here).
- Eric
On October 5, 2015 8:56:33 AM PDT, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>Some of the people on this mailing list are blindly discussing the
>technicalities of a soft/hard fork without realizing that is not Mike's
>main intention. At least I perceive (and maybe others too) something
>else
>is happening.
>
>Let me try to clarify: the discussion has nothing to do with technical
>arguments. I generally like more hard forks than soft forks (but I
>won't
>explain why because this is not a technical thread), but for CLTV this
>is
>quite irrelevant (but I won't explain why..), and I want CLTV to be
>deployed asap.
>
>Mike's intention is to criticize the informal governance model of
>Bitcoin
>Core development and he has strategically pushed the discussion to a
>dead-end where the group either:
>
>1) ignores him, which is against the established criteria that all
>technical objections coming from anyone must be addressed until that
>person
>agrees, so that a change can be uncontroversial. If the group moves
>forward
>with the change, then the "uncontroversial" criteria is violated and
>then
>credibility is lost. So a new governance model would be required for
>which
>the change is within the established rules.
>
>2) respond to his technical objections one after the other, on never
>ending
>threads, bringing the project to a standstill.
>
>As I don't want 2) to happen, then 1) must happen, which is what Mike
>wants. I have nothing for or against Mike personally. I just think Mike
>Hearn has won this battle. But having a more formal decision making
>process
>may not be too bad for Bitcoin, maybe it can actually be good.
>
>Best regards
> from a non-developer to my dearest developer friends,
> Sergio.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>bitcoin-dev mailing list
>bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
------YDBUJLN64BWVMADQEHCOGQJF0ITCN8
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html><head></head><body>I agree with you, Sergio, up until the part about someone having won a battle. There's a difference between sincere technical objections and someone just being a dick. I think in this case this line has been crossed (and I don't think I'm alone here).<br>
<br>
- Eric<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On October 5, 2015 8:56:33 AM PDT, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr">Some of the people on this mailing list are blindly discussing the technicalities of a soft/hard fork without realizing that is not Mike's main intention. At least I perceive (and maybe others too) something else is happening.<div><br /><div>Let me try to clarify: the discussion has nothing to do with technical arguments. I generally like more hard forks than soft forks (but I won't explain why because this is not a technical thread), but for CLTV this is quite irrelevant (but I won't explain why..), and I want CLTV to be deployed asap.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Mike's intention is to criticize the informal governance model of Bitcoin Core development and he has strategically pushed the discussion to a dead-end where the group either:</div><div><br /></div><div>1) ignores him, which is against the established criteria that all technical objections coming from anyone must be addressed until that person agrees, so that a change can be
uncontroversial. If the group moves forward with the change, then the "uncontroversial" criteria is violated and then credibility is lost. So a new governance model would be required for which the change is within the established rules.</div><div><br /></div><div>2) respond to his technical objections one after the other, on never ending threads, bringing the project to a standstill.</div><div><br /></div><div>As I don't want 2) to happen, then 1) must happen, which is what Mike wants. I have nothing for or against Mike personally. I just think Mike Hearn has won this battle. But having a more formal decision making process may not be too bad for Bitcoin, maybe it can actually be good.</div><div><br /></div><div>Best regards </div><div> from a non-developer to my dearest developer friends,</div><div> Sergio.<br /><div><br /></div></div></div></div></div>
<p style="margin-top: 2.5em; margin-bottom: 1em; border-bottom: 1px solid #000"></p><pre class="k9mail"><hr /><br />bitcoin-dev mailing list<br />bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<br /><a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br /></pre></blockquote></div><br>
-- <br>
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.</body></html>
------YDBUJLN64BWVMADQEHCOGQJF0ITCN8--
|
