š
Original date posted:2015-06-25
š Original message:+1 for Wladimir, as I said. Anyone who checks the commit history on
github can see that he decides quite well all the time for code changes.
These fake arguments are thrown by people who hope they will force him
into deciding for consensus / protocol changes. This won't happen.
On 6/25/2015 4:41 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
> Wladimir is doing an amazing job under difficult circumstances. Give the guy a break, please.
>
> - Eric Lombrozo
>
>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 6:36 AM, s7r <s7r at sky-ip.org> wrote:
>>
>> I guess you mean Wladimir here. You are wrong, Wladimir does decide and
>> if you look at the commit history on github.com for bitcoin core you
>> will see, that he does actually decide and does it really good.
>>
>> He just does not want to decide (and he really should not) on CONSENSUS
>> changes or protocol changes. This is totally different.
>>
>> Stop the analogy with "other open source projects". This is an open
>> source project (the code part) but unlike any other open source projects
>> which can just be forked, without affecting the other users, in bitcoin
>> we need all the users to trust a single blockchain, so it'll have value.
>> If some users fork the blockchain and change consensus rules, they are
>> not just harming themselves, they are affecting ALL the users, since
>> such a thing would have strong impact over the BTC/FIAT rate, affecting
>> everyone in the ecosystem. There is economics involved here and human
>> element, things which are hard to fix via code, even if the code is
>> developed in open source style.
>>
>> It's one thing to decide to merge some patches, improve the code, etc.
>> and another thing to decide for consensus rules when you literary play
>> with 4 billion united states dollars of other people's money. This
>> shouldn't be Wladimir's responsibility, it's just unfair for people to
>> throw this on his shoulders.
>>
>> I do not under any circumstances suggest that the consensus should
>> remain as it is now forever. We need to improve it, but this should not
>> be on the maintainer. I've seen smart suggestions on this mail list
>> where consensus changes can be made during a long period of time,
>> through soft forks, where all users/miners/exchangers/merchants get the
>> chance to choose / take action.
>>
>> On 6/25/2015 3:07 AM, Milly Bitcoin 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
>
s7r [ARCHIVE] /
npub1j3ā¦cwg9h
2023-06-07 15:40:13
in reply to nevent1qā¦7wys
Author Public Key
npub1j3u42vq63qzs2nyddgkf4s4t7pa85x855vas54e6yauxsvpf2wcsacwg9hPublished at
2023-06-07 15:40:13Event JSON
{
"id": "24b88d3e4deeaedc8b046f0b6d0bd1a5393f938225c3902bc8b3430723cb782e",
"pubkey": "947955301a8805054c8d6a2c9ac2abf07a7a18f4a33b0a573a277868302953b1",
"created_at": 1686152413,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3fe09b8bc3b13f27e42579b8ab63a325ab25d17e0571ce6b5f141d69b2abe4bf",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b83ac5c8d8c831e08df56e8f1fb1f9479e1164e31af87e3e8e20fbf32aeb7556",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2015-06-25\nš Original message:+1 for Wladimir, as I said. Anyone who checks the commit history on\ngithub can see that he decides quite well all the time for code changes.\nThese fake arguments are thrown by people who hope they will force him\ninto deciding for consensus / protocol changes. This won't happen.\n\nOn 6/25/2015 4:41 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote:\n\u003e Wladimir is doing an amazing job under difficult circumstances. Give the guy a break, please.\n\u003e \n\u003e - Eric Lombrozo\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e On Jun 25, 2015, at 6:36 AM, s7r \u003cs7r at sky-ip.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I guess you mean Wladimir here. You are wrong, Wladimir does decide and\n\u003e\u003e if you look at the commit history on github.com for bitcoin core you\n\u003e\u003e will see, that he does actually decide and does it really good.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e He just does not want to decide (and he really should not) on CONSENSUS\n\u003e\u003e changes or protocol changes. This is totally different.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Stop the analogy with \"other open source projects\". This is an open\n\u003e\u003e source project (the code part) but unlike any other open source projects\n\u003e\u003e which can just be forked, without affecting the other users, in bitcoin\n\u003e\u003e we need all the users to trust a single blockchain, so it'll have value.\n\u003e\u003e If some users fork the blockchain and change consensus rules, they are\n\u003e\u003e not just harming themselves, they are affecting ALL the users, since\n\u003e\u003e such a thing would have strong impact over the BTC/FIAT rate, affecting\n\u003e\u003e everyone in the ecosystem. There is economics involved here and human\n\u003e\u003e element, things which are hard to fix via code, even if the code is\n\u003e\u003e developed in open source style.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e It's one thing to decide to merge some patches, improve the code, etc.\n\u003e\u003e and another thing to decide for consensus rules when you literary play\n\u003e\u003e with 4 billion united states dollars of other people's money. This\n\u003e\u003e shouldn't be Wladimir's responsibility, it's just unfair for people to\n\u003e\u003e throw this on his shoulders.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I do not under any circumstances suggest that the consensus should\n\u003e\u003e remain as it is now forever. We need to improve it, but this should not\n\u003e\u003e be on the maintainer. I've seen smart suggestions on this mail list\n\u003e\u003e where consensus changes can be made during a long period of time,\n\u003e\u003e through soft forks, where all users/miners/exchangers/merchants get the\n\u003e\u003e chance to choose / take action.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On 6/25/2015 3:07 AM, Milly Bitcoin wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I have seen this question asked many times. Most developers become\n\u003e\u003e\u003e defensive and they usually give a very vague 1-sentence answer when this\n\u003e\u003e\u003e question is asked. It seems to be it is based on personalities rather\n\u003e\u003e\u003e than any kind of definable process. To have that discussion the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e personalities must be separated out and answers like \"such-and-such\n\u003e\u003e\u003e wouldn't do that\" don't really do much to advance the discussion. Also,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e the incentive for new developers to come in is that they will be paid by\n\u003e\u003e\u003e companies who want to influence the code and this should be considered\n\u003e\u003e\u003e (some developers take this statement as an insult when it is just a\n\u003e\u003e\u003e statement of the incentive process).\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e The other problem you are having is the lead developer does not want to\n\u003e\u003e\u003e be a \"decider\" when, in fact, he is a very significant decider. While\n\u003e\u003e\u003e the users have the ultimate choice in a practical sense the chief\n\u003e\u003e\u003e developer is the \"decider.\" Now people don't want to get him upset so\n\u003e\u003e\u003e nobody wants to push the issue or fully define the process. Now you are\n\u003e\u003e\u003e left with a broken, unwritten/unspoken process. While this type of\n\u003e\u003e\u003e thing may work with a small group of developers businesses/investors\n\u003e\u003e\u003e looking in from the outside will see this as a risk.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Until you get passed all the personality-based arguments you are going\n\u003e\u003e\u003e to have a tough time defining a real process.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Russ\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e On 6/24/2015 7:41 PM, Raystonn wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e I would like to start a civil discussion on an undefined, or at least\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e unwritten, portion of the BIP process. Who should get to vote on\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e approval to commit a BIP implementation into Bitcoin Core? Is a\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e simple majority of these voters sufficient for approval? If not, then\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e what is?\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Raystonn\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\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 _______________________________________________\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",
"sig": "b3d9ac2cb12e8ae0538582d98c3a8dc05d1dad86be4845476b98b77af1323a136b4adacfd5ee41c10b59e8e8c91d4f17028f9e3815de00457a18729ecbb65e2b"
}