📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26
📝 Original message:Without looking up specific links I am confident people like Mircea
Popescu will oppose just about any change. Maybe they don't post their
objection to Github but the point I am making is that no matter what
change you make someone, somewhere will be against it. Some of the
developers think that Github is the only place that matters and that the
only opinions that matter is a tiny group of insiders. I don't think
that way which is the reasoning behind my statement.
I am saying that after all the concerns are addressed as far as
reasonably possible someone, somewhere has to decide whether or not to
commit the changes to the official release. Right now the only person
who makes that decision if the version manager. I agree it should not
fall onto the shoulders of one person who is also very busy doing other
things. I am saying there should be some process to move forward and
make decisions when needed.
Also, you already saw one of the Core developers calling me a "troll"
and telling others to ignore my messages. I have heard of several
people who just drop out of the github discussions because of stuff like
that. They also delete message from Gihub discussions so that archive
is not 100% credible. 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 for the proposed change as it nobody is allowed
to question it. After watching 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 view the Github system as the biggest
centralized choke-point in Bitcoin and probably its biggest threat to
its continued survival. Anyone can come in and hire a couple core
developers and veto any change they don't want.
Russ
On 6/26/2015 7:13 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
> 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?
>
Milly Bitcoin [ARCHIVE] /
npub1rv…hc5wt
2023-06-07 15:40:16
in reply to nevent1q…h0lq
Author Public Key
npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wtPublished at
2023-06-07 15:40:16Event JSON
{
"id": "e9720efa68d750a09963f4ce82c000d51225e4521fdbc407d339d46046e811ec",
"pubkey": "1b29d94ee81e1ee0479f1db4bc4ac887407bd470a0d7060e76f8ab27fdd57e50",
"created_at": 1686152416,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3fe09b8bc3b13f27e42579b8ab63a325ab25d17e0571ce6b5f141d69b2abe4bf",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"dd20d5264a8efbada7c2f87bce7481ebfca3b53aad4676219a94cbc9c5ea34e3",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26\n📝 Original message:Without looking up specific links I am confident people like Mircea \nPopescu will oppose just about any change. Maybe they don't post their \nobjection to Github but the point I am making is that no matter what \nchange you make someone, somewhere will be against it. Some of the \ndevelopers think that Github is the only place that matters and that the \nonly opinions that matter is a tiny group of insiders. I don't think \nthat way which is the reasoning behind my statement.\n\nI am saying that after all the concerns are addressed as far as \nreasonably possible someone, somewhere has to decide whether or not to \ncommit the changes to the official release. Right now the only person \nwho makes that decision if the version manager. I agree it should not \nfall onto the shoulders of one person who is also very busy doing other \nthings. I am saying there should be some process to move forward and \nmake decisions when needed.\n\nAlso, you already saw one of the Core developers calling me a \"troll\" \nand telling others to ignore my messages. I have heard of several \npeople who just drop out of the github discussions because of stuff like \nthat. They also delete message from Gihub discussions so that archive \nis not 100% credible. I have seen things like a Github discussion \nbetween 3 or 4 people and then Garzik send out a tweet that there is \nnear universal approval for the proposed change as it nobody is allowed \nto question it. After watching the github process for a couple years I \nsimply don't trust it because the developers in charge have a \ndictatorial style and they shut out many stakeholders instead of \nsoliciting their opinions. I view the Github system as the biggest \ncentralized choke-point in Bitcoin and probably its biggest threat to \nits continued survival. Anyone can come in and hire a couple core \ndevelopers and veto any change they don't want.\n\nRuss\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn 6/26/2015 7:13 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:\n\u003e On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Milly Bitcoin \u003cmilly at bitcoins.info\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \"Cultish\" means making claims without any supporting facts.\n\u003e On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Milly Bitcoin \u003cmilly at bitcoins.info\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e As for developers, the consensus on code changes are almost never 100% and\n\u003e\u003e someone has to make the decision about what is an a acceptable consensus.\n\u003e This statement seems \"cultish\" by your own definition.\n\u003e I'm going to make the opposite statement: the consensus on code\n\u003e changes is almost always 100%.\n\u003e Mark has already given a couple examples of changes to consensus rules\n\u003e (the most risky type of change), here's a few thousand other examples\n\u003e of changes to the bitcoin core's code that had no opposition:\n\u003e\n\u003e https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master\n\u003e\n\u003e Can you please point us to a few examples were changes were made with\n\u003e opposition to them?\n\u003e In those cases (which you assure is what happens almost always), would\n\u003e you say that the result of letting a decider decide instead of fixing\n\u003e or addressing all the concerns (either by changing the proposed code\n\u003e or explaining it) better in restrospective?\n\u003e",
"sig": "191358d53f33025a31d9becf7e4f64ae33b5b538e78a6074b9ea37f3f0e7e32ecff334e2dacd1c18e724d84626f7711c560f7aa4f488b1a539e2ab0e918caa9f"
}