📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05
📝 Original message:While this isn't really the place to discuss it, I respectfully disagree. Mike appears to be making a point concerning Bitcoin protocol authorship and on the perceived value of soft-forks. It doesn't look like simple trolling to me. Mike and Gregory are both extremely intelligent and well-versed in Bitcoin and both should be listened to earnestly and equally while receiving our full professional respect.
At this stage it's becoming readily apparent to at least me (and without putting words into his mouth it would seem Gavin has experienced a similar realisation; please correct if I'm mistaken) that Bitcoin protocol authorship and individual implementation development need to be separated asap. I have no suggestions for the structure of this separation but as soon as it happens the better, IMO. It's likely messages like this would then no longer be seen on this list and Bitcoin Core developers could focus on their implementation's development free from distraction while other implementers and Core developers could discuss protocol issues in a more relevant forum in a more civilized and constructive manner.
05.10.2015, 23:05, "Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> It's pretty clear Mike has turned into concern troll and bully. He insults people, mischaracterizes others, quibbles over words and definitions and has stated numerous times in other forums he has no interest in building consensus changes he doesn't agree with himself.
>
> He's lost his integrity and trust and why the core developers waste their time with his antics is beyond me, let Mike fork Bitcoin, develop XT, and ignore his input on core unless some XT feature is deemed good enough to incorporate, that is how a thousand other open source projects deal with trolls like Mike.
>
> On Oct 5, 2015 3:41 PM, "Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> It is an eloquent change, but not really the topic we were discussing. It also
>>> makes you attack Mike (calling him out as having a strawman) without basis.
>>> For the second time in this thread.
>>> I would suggest arguing on the topic, not on the man.
>>
>> Such a shame you appear to reserve that wisdom for those you disagree
>> with, biting your tongue when others emit all forms of ad hominem--
>> such as suggesting we've spent less volunteer time on Bitcoin and thus
>> our opinion has less merit (or that we haven't written certian kinds
>> of software (even when, ironically, we have!), and thus our opinion
>> doesn't have merit, and so on). I think everyone would benefit from
>> it, especially as that kind of correction is best received from
>> someone who agrees with you.
>>
>> In this case, I think, however your correction is also misplaced at
>> least on this message; though I would otherwise welcome it. I'm not
>> complaining about the man; but pointing out the behavior of stating an
>> opinion no one as held as theirs and attacking it is not a productive
>> way to hold a discussion. It's an argument or a behavior, not a
>> person, and beyond calling it bad I attempted to explaining (perhaps
>> poorly) why its bad.
>>
>> What Sergio is saying is not the same; Mike argued some established
>> criteria existed where it didn't-- and I was pointing that out; and
>> talking about how the situation here is not very similar to the one
>> that Mike was trying to draw a parallel to. I enumerated a number of
>> specific reasons why this is the case. If the differences between
>> Sergio's comments and mine are still unclear after this clarification,
>> I'd be glad to talk it through with you off-list-- in spite of your
>> (welcome) compliments, communication is just fundamentally difficult,
>> and no amount eloquence changes that. If there is continued
>> misunderstanding, I do not doubt its my fault; but it's probably not a
>> good use of hundreds/thousands of people's time for you to help me
>> interactively improve my explanation on list. :)
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> ,
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Santino Napolitano [ARCHIVE] /
npub1mh…u4ruf
2023-06-07 17:42:46
in reply to nevent1q…8xn4
Author Public Key
npub1mhusc2spd4pgkyhdexw45a4jc2r4para6ucf7k4yl87uzylg7vxq9u4rufPublished at
2023-06-07 17:42:46Event JSON
{
"id": "3054edaff4bc31636741c7d22f3f32372679e511ccfecc245294a1dc6600b053",
"pubkey": "ddf90c2a016d428b12edc99d5a76b2c28750f47dd7309f5aa4f9fdc113e8f30c",
"created_at": 1686159766,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8b171b0a181c0ea41f6054eb15f1f19559c90fd9ce9e5f5fc159720aea23cfd9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c3a14916dc29d9c8c63315ed89c07c3b10fd0ae335fb00440f7004a80d4a82e2",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1442cd14abbf3cacb8113fe64d6254699e60692bd6ddfc5a49e42805f6a333d1"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05\n📝 Original message:While this isn't really the place to discuss it, I respectfully disagree. Mike appears to be making a point concerning Bitcoin protocol authorship and on the perceived value of soft-forks. It doesn't look like simple trolling to me. Mike and Gregory are both extremely intelligent and well-versed in Bitcoin and both should be listened to earnestly and equally while receiving our full professional respect.\n\nAt this stage it's becoming readily apparent to at least me (and without putting words into his mouth it would seem Gavin has experienced a similar realisation; please correct if I'm mistaken) that Bitcoin protocol authorship and individual implementation development need to be separated asap. I have no suggestions for the structure of this separation but as soon as it happens the better, IMO. It's likely messages like this would then no longer be seen on this list and Bitcoin Core developers could focus on their implementation's development free from distraction while other implementers and Core developers could discuss protocol issues in a more relevant forum in a more civilized and constructive manner.\n\n05.10.2015, 23:05, \"Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev\" \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e:\n\u003e It's pretty clear Mike has turned into concern troll and bully. He insults people, mischaracterizes others, quibbles over words and definitions and has stated numerous times in other forums he has no interest in building consensus changes he doesn't agree with himself.\n\u003e\n\u003e He's lost his integrity and trust and why the core developers waste their time with his antics is beyond me, let Mike fork Bitcoin, develop XT, and ignore his input on core unless some XT feature is deemed good enough to incorporate, that is how a thousand other open source projects deal with trolls like Mike.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Oct 5, 2015 3:41 PM, \"Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev\" \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e It is an eloquent change, but not really the topic we were discussing. It also\n\u003e\u003e\u003e makes you attack Mike (calling him out as having a strawman) without basis.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e For the second time in this thread.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I would suggest arguing on the topic, not on the man.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Such a shame you appear to reserve that wisdom for those you disagree\n\u003e\u003e with, biting your tongue when others emit all forms of ad hominem--\n\u003e\u003e such as suggesting we've spent less volunteer time on Bitcoin and thus\n\u003e\u003e our opinion has less merit (or that we haven't written certian kinds\n\u003e\u003e of software (even when, ironically, we have!), and thus our opinion\n\u003e\u003e doesn't have merit, and so on). I think everyone would benefit from\n\u003e\u003e it, especially as that kind of correction is best received from\n\u003e\u003e someone who agrees with you.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e In this case, I think, however your correction is also misplaced at\n\u003e\u003e least on this message; though I would otherwise welcome it. I'm not\n\u003e\u003e complaining about the man; but pointing out the behavior of stating an\n\u003e\u003e opinion no one as held as theirs and attacking it is not a productive\n\u003e\u003e way to hold a discussion. It's an argument or a behavior, not a\n\u003e\u003e person, and beyond calling it bad I attempted to explaining (perhaps\n\u003e\u003e poorly) why its bad.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e What Sergio is saying is not the same; Mike argued some established\n\u003e\u003e criteria existed where it didn't-- and I was pointing that out; and\n\u003e\u003e talking about how the situation here is not very similar to the one\n\u003e\u003e that Mike was trying to draw a parallel to. I enumerated a number of\n\u003e\u003e specific reasons why this is the case. If the differences between\n\u003e\u003e Sergio's comments and mine are still unclear after this clarification,\n\u003e\u003e I'd be glad to talk it through with you off-list-- in spite of your\n\u003e\u003e (welcome) compliments, communication is just fundamentally difficult,\n\u003e\u003e and no amount eloquence changes that. If there is continued\n\u003e\u003e misunderstanding, I do not doubt its my fault; but it's probably not a\n\u003e\u003e good use of hundreds/thousands of people's time for you to help me\n\u003e\u003e interactively improve my explanation on list. :)\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e ,\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev",
"sig": "6d41a33c1b50c03440d802652906d4fc60f5ce71849d6ed08d4ce4763f63e46d3d5c6ebefd9b64d3dcc87c2002447f23ad2c38b725850e36892f1a5934b32840"
}