📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26
📝 Original message:On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly at bitcoins.info> wrote:
> "Cultish" means making claims without any supporting facts.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Milly Bitcoin <milly at bitcoins.info> wrote:
> As for developers, the consensus on code changes are almost never 100% and
> someone has to make the decision about what is an a acceptable consensus.
This statement seems "cultish" by your own definition.
I'm going to make the opposite statement: the consensus on code
changes is almost always 100%.
Mark has already given a couple examples of changes to consensus rules
(the most risky type of change), here's a few thousand other examples
of changes to the bitcoin core's code that had no opposition:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master
Can you please point us to a few examples were changes were made with
opposition to them?
In those cases (which you assure is what happens almost always), would
you say that the result of letting a decider decide instead of fixing
or addressing all the concerns (either by changing the proposed code
or explaining it) better in restrospective?
Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…cl2d8
2023-06-07 15:40:15
in reply to nevent1q…csqr
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 15:40:15Event JSON
{
"id": "dd20d5264a8efbada7c2f87bce7481ebfca3b53aad4676219a94cbc9c5ea34e3",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686152415,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3fe09b8bc3b13f27e42579b8ab63a325ab25d17e0571ce6b5f141d69b2abe4bf",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"bc77285b1b1a1e1e2a6665c9bb581935da928ed5d73449dfec23741fab5d4498",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1b29d94ee81e1ee0479f1db4bc4ac887407bd470a0d7060e76f8ab27fdd57e50"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Milly Bitcoin \u003cmilly at bitcoins.info\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \"Cultish\" means making claims without any supporting facts.\n\nOn Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Milly Bitcoin \u003cmilly at bitcoins.info\u003e wrote:\n\u003e As for developers, the consensus on code changes are almost never 100% and\n\u003e someone has to make the decision about what is an a acceptable consensus.\n\nThis statement seems \"cultish\" by your own definition.\nI'm going to make the opposite statement: the consensus on code\nchanges is almost always 100%.\nMark has already given a couple examples of changes to consensus rules\n(the most risky type of change), here's a few thousand other examples\nof changes to the bitcoin core's code that had no opposition:\n\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master\n\nCan you please point us to a few examples were changes were made with\nopposition to them?\nIn those cases (which you assure is what happens almost always), would\nyou say that the result of letting a decider decide instead of fixing\nor addressing all the concerns (either by changing the proposed code\nor explaining it) better in restrospective?",
"sig": "af4546cf13571888f621dc4161fbcb9b93fe1d655d4cf95e1d93d423b4baddc78c3de3ebe1ba751ef321ff85b832cecbfcd92e84a47fdb849447bb872b9b4983"
}