📅 Original date posted:2015-06-24
📝 Original message:+1 Mark!
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark at friedenbach.org>
wrote:
> I'm sorry but this is absolutely not the case, Milly. The reason that
> people get defensive is that we have a carefully constructed process that
> does work (thank you very much!) and is well documented. We talk about it
> quite often in fact as it is a defining characteristic of how bitcoin is
> developed which differs in some ways from how other open source software is
> developed -- although it remains the same in most other ways.
>
> Changes to the non-consensus sections of Bitcoin Core tend to get merged
> when there are a few reviews, tests, and ACKs from recognized developers,
> there are no outstanding objections, and the maintainer doing the merge
> makes a subjective judgement that the code is ready.
>
> Consensus-changes, on the other hand, get merged into Bitcoin Core only
> after the above criteria are met AND an extremely long discussion period
> that has given all the relevant stakeholders a chance to comment, and no
> significant objections remain. Consensus-code changes are unanimous. They
> must be.
>
> The sort of process that exists in standards bodies for example, with
> working groups and formal voting procedures, has no place where changes
> define the nature and validity of other people's money. Who has the right
> to reach into your pocket and define how you can or cannot spend your
> coins? The premise of bitcoin is that no one has that right, yet that is
> very much what we do when consensus code changes are made. That is why when
> we make a change to the rules governing the nature of bitcoin, we must make
> sure that everyone is made aware of the change and consents to it.
>
> Everyone. Does this work? Does this scale? So far, it does.
> Uncontroversial changes, such as BIP 66, are deployed without issue. Every
> indication is that BIP 66 will complete deployment in the very near future,
> and we intend to repeat this process for more interesting changes such as
> BIP65: CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.
>
> This isn't about no one stepping forward to be the "decider." This is
> about no one having the right to decide these things on the behalf of
> others. If a contentious change is proposed and not accepted by the process
> of consensus, that is because the process is doing its job at rejecting
> controversial changes. It has nothing to do with personality, and
> everything to do with the nature of bitcoin itself.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly at bitcoins.info>
> wrote:
>
>> I have seen this question asked many times. Most developers become
>> defensive and they usually give a very vague 1-sentence answer when this
>> question is asked. It seems to be it is based on personalities rather than
>> any kind of definable process. To have that discussion the personalities
>> must be separated out and answers like "such-and-such wouldn't do that"
>> don't really do much to advance the discussion. Also, the incentive for
>> new developers to come in is that they will be paid by companies who want
>> to influence the code and this should be considered (some developers take
>> this statement as an insult when it is just a statement of the incentive
>> process).
>>
>> The other problem you are having is the lead developer does not want to
>> be a "decider" when, in fact, he is a very significant decider. While the
>> users have the ultimate choice in a practical sense the chief developer is
>> the "decider." Now people don't want to get him upset so nobody wants to
>> push the issue or fully define the process. Now you are left with a
>> broken, unwritten/unspoken process. While this type of thing may work with
>> a small group of developers businesses/investors looking in from the
>> outside will see this as a risk.
>>
>> Until you get passed all the personality-based arguments you are going to
>> have a tough time defining a real process.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/24/2015 7:41 PM, Raystonn wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to start a civil discussion on an undefined, or at least
>>> unwritten, portion of the BIP process. Who should get to vote on approval
>>> to commit a BIP implementation into Bitcoin Core? Is a simple majority of
>>> these voters sufficient for approval? If not, then what is?
>>>
>>> Raystonn
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150624/3c10f6ac/attachment.html>;
Alex Morcos [ARCHIVE] /
npub10z…3xfzw
2023-06-07 15:40:04
in reply to nevent1q…pne5
Author Public Key
npub10z4xjfgftd3fm9dfu7dw6mkemgyhxgumcmhd7yd0ggjq7rsaw4wqa3xfzwSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 15:40:04Event JSON
{
"id": "6082029ee8eab4bdecf065e14be7ee8fbec301ed370a3e8d6976eedcd2f2fcdb",
"pubkey": "78aa6925095b629d95a9e79aed6ed9da0973239bc6eedf11af42240f0e1d755c",
"created_at": 1686152404,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3fe09b8bc3b13f27e42579b8ab63a325ab25d17e0571ce6b5f141d69b2abe4bf",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"00b267814100f1914143095f549140955ed148e65024721b7c3aef1c26320105",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1c61d995949cbfaf14f767784e166bde865c7b8783d7aa3bf0a1d014b70c0069"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-24\n📝 Original message:+1 Mark!\n\n\nOn Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Mark Friedenbach \u003cmark at friedenbach.org\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e I'm sorry but this is absolutely not the case, Milly. The reason that\n\u003e people get defensive is that we have a carefully constructed process that\n\u003e does work (thank you very much!) and is well documented. We talk about it\n\u003e quite often in fact as it is a defining characteristic of how bitcoin is\n\u003e developed which differs in some ways from how other open source software is\n\u003e developed -- although it remains the same in most other ways.\n\u003e\n\u003e Changes to the non-consensus sections of Bitcoin Core tend to get merged\n\u003e when there are a few reviews, tests, and ACKs from recognized developers,\n\u003e there are no outstanding objections, and the maintainer doing the merge\n\u003e makes a subjective judgement that the code is ready.\n\u003e\n\u003e Consensus-changes, on the other hand, get merged into Bitcoin Core only\n\u003e after the above criteria are met AND an extremely long discussion period\n\u003e that has given all the relevant stakeholders a chance to comment, and no\n\u003e significant objections remain. Consensus-code changes are unanimous. They\n\u003e must be.\n\u003e\n\u003e The sort of process that exists in standards bodies for example, with\n\u003e working groups and formal voting procedures, has no place where changes\n\u003e define the nature and validity of other people's money. Who has the right\n\u003e to reach into your pocket and define how you can or cannot spend your\n\u003e coins? The premise of bitcoin is that no one has that right, yet that is\n\u003e very much what we do when consensus code changes are made. That is why when\n\u003e we make a change to the rules governing the nature of bitcoin, we must make\n\u003e sure that everyone is made aware of the change and consents to it.\n\u003e\n\u003e Everyone. Does this work? Does this scale? So far, it does.\n\u003e Uncontroversial changes, such as BIP 66, are deployed without issue. Every\n\u003e indication is that BIP 66 will complete deployment in the very near future,\n\u003e and we intend to repeat this process for more interesting changes such as\n\u003e BIP65: CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.\n\u003e\n\u003e This isn't about no one stepping forward to be the \"decider.\" This is\n\u003e about no one having the right to decide these things on the behalf of\n\u003e others. If a contentious change is proposed and not accepted by the process\n\u003e of consensus, that is because the process is doing its job at rejecting\n\u003e controversial changes. It has nothing to do with personality, and\n\u003e everything to do with the nature of bitcoin itself.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Milly Bitcoin \u003cmilly at bitcoins.info\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I have seen this question asked many times. Most developers become\n\u003e\u003e defensive and they usually give a very vague 1-sentence answer when this\n\u003e\u003e question is asked. It seems to be it is based on personalities rather than\n\u003e\u003e any kind of definable process. To have that discussion the personalities\n\u003e\u003e must be separated out and answers like \"such-and-such wouldn't do that\"\n\u003e\u003e don't really do much to advance the discussion. Also, the incentive for\n\u003e\u003e new developers to come in is that they will be paid by companies who want\n\u003e\u003e to influence the code and this should be considered (some developers take\n\u003e\u003e this statement as an insult when it is just a statement of the incentive\n\u003e\u003e process).\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e The other problem you are having is the lead developer does not want to\n\u003e\u003e be a \"decider\" when, in fact, he is a very significant decider. While the\n\u003e\u003e users have the ultimate choice in a practical sense the chief developer is\n\u003e\u003e the \"decider.\" Now people don't want to get him upset so nobody wants to\n\u003e\u003e push the issue or fully define the process. Now you are left with a\n\u003e\u003e broken, unwritten/unspoken process. While this type of thing may work with\n\u003e\u003e a small group of developers businesses/investors looking in from the\n\u003e\u003e outside will see this as a risk.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Until you get passed all the personality-based arguments you are going to\n\u003e\u003e have a tough time defining a real process.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Russ\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On 6/24/2015 7:41 PM, Raystonn wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I would like to start a civil discussion on an undefined, or at least\n\u003e\u003e\u003e unwritten, portion of the BIP process. Who should get to vote on approval\n\u003e\u003e\u003e to commit a BIP implementation into Bitcoin Core? Is a simple majority of\n\u003e\u003e\u003e these voters sufficient for approval? If not, then what is?\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Raystonn\n\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\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\u003e\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\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150624/3c10f6ac/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "7771e78db86337da83e1043a01a402dc281041449d0432f5170c1eef8352665a94392ce516996b6e966efb709e07837bf89eead3c3295bf9a7b55487924b0c8e"
}