📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18
📝 Original message:On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> OK, let's agree to unpack the two things.
>
> The first issue is how are decisions made in Bitcoin Core? I struggle to
> explain this to others because I don't understand it myself. Is it a vote
> of people with commit access? Is it a 100% agreement of "core developers"
> and if so, who are these people? Is it "whoever reverts the change last"?
> Could I write down in a document a precise description of how decisions are
> made? No, and that's been a fairly frustrating problem for a long time.
>
> But let's leave it to one side for a moment.
>
> Let's focus on the other issue: what happens if the Bitcoin Core
> decision making process goes wrong?
>
Why do you keep talking about Bitcoin Core maintainers? The means for doing
a hard fork is convincing the network to run modified code, whether that is
a new version of Bitcoin Core or a fork of it, or something else entirely.
If I see consensus about a proposed network change, I will be in favor of
implementing it in Bitcoin Core. But we're not at that point. There is no
network change proposed with consensus. There is not even a patch to be
discussed. There are working proposals, and people are talking about them.
This is good.
I think maintainers of particular software should not be, and are not those
who decide the network's rules. People running the code are. Of course
maintainers have a large influence, but so do other people - like you.
> This was a reference to a post by Gregory on Reddit where he said if
Gavin were to do a pull request for the block size change and then merge
it, he would revert it. And I fully believe he would do so!
I believe so too, and I would do the same. Because I believe implementing a
consensus rule change without having very good expectations that the
network will adopt it, is reckless from the point of view of maintainers,
for all reasons I have mentioned before.
--
Pieter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150618/d8c40122/attachment.html>;
Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tj…jtl6r
2023-06-07 15:38:41
in reply to nevent1q…37ff
Author Public Key
npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rPublished at
2023-06-07 15:38:41Event JSON
{
"id": "40b0bbb9578fca304d14087de9f8793f3fc1c5008a431103f6109f6665305c1f",
"pubkey": "5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6",
"created_at": 1686152321,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"23c1bb2f25b9e7356b48aa2a86751c4f26fb3977b440917a1cb3512c200b0b2f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"cef08c8257512e06f1b808931aaf5399a1fe64205b5b719bec355dfb0c618076",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e OK, let's agree to unpack the two things.\n\u003e\n\u003e The first issue is how are decisions made in Bitcoin Core? I struggle to\n\u003e explain this to others because I don't understand it myself. Is it a vote\n\u003e of people with commit access? Is it a 100% agreement of \"core developers\"\n\u003e and if so, who are these people? Is it \"whoever reverts the change last\"?\n\u003e Could I write down in a document a precise description of how decisions are\n\u003e made? No, and that's been a fairly frustrating problem for a long time.\n\u003e\n\u003e But let's leave it to one side for a moment.\n\u003e\n\u003e Let's focus on the other issue: what happens if the Bitcoin Core\n\u003e decision making process goes wrong?\n\u003e\n\nWhy do you keep talking about Bitcoin Core maintainers? The means for doing\na hard fork is convincing the network to run modified code, whether that is\na new version of Bitcoin Core or a fork of it, or something else entirely.\n\nIf I see consensus about a proposed network change, I will be in favor of\nimplementing it in Bitcoin Core. But we're not at that point. There is no\nnetwork change proposed with consensus. There is not even a patch to be\ndiscussed. There are working proposals, and people are talking about them.\nThis is good.\n\nI think maintainers of particular software should not be, and are not those\nwho decide the network's rules. People running the code are. Of course\nmaintainers have a large influence, but so do other people - like you.\n\n\u003e This was a reference to a post by Gregory on Reddit where he said if\nGavin were to do a pull request for the block size change and then merge\nit, he would revert it. And I fully believe he would do so!\n\nI believe so too, and I would do the same. Because I believe implementing a\nconsensus rule change without having very good expectations that the\nnetwork will adopt it, is reckless from the point of view of maintainers,\nfor all reasons I have mentioned before.\n\n-- \nPieter\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150618/d8c40122/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "415aa6104fa77b13b8ebe755e59b7171e1ddcba10d14ea61a0f50053aa48096ad55e44fb6b154765b317438f5639960b99267f21a518a1f6921762dc3234d65f"
}