<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1jr34gu65jpq9770ehxzw032lsmj8zfxctrcyngn8d8498m5parvqhug3vh

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsfpc65wd2fqszl08umnp88c40cder3ynv93uzf5fnkn6jna6q73kqpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnwv46qz9rhwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjmcpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqghuvja

Publishing to

relay.nostr.net

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Last Notes

2023-06-07 15:38:11 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-15
📝 Original message:I'm quite puzzled by the response myself, it doesn't seem to address some
of the (more serious) concerns that Adam put out, the most important
question that was asked being the one regarding personal ownership of the
proposed fork:
"How do you plan to deal with security & incident response for the duration
you describe where you will have control while you are deploying the
unilateral hard-fork and being in sole maintainership control?"
I do genuinely hope that whomever (now and future) wishes to fork the
protocol reconsider first whether they are truly ready to test/flex their
reputation/skills/resources in this way... Intuitively, to me it seems
counterproductive, and I don't fully believe it is within a single
developer's talents to manage the process start-to-finish (as it is
non-trivial to hard-fork successfully, others have rehashed this in other
threads)...
That being said I think it appropriate if Adam's questions were responded
in-line when Mike is feeling up to it. I think that the answers are
important for the community to hear when such a drastic change is being
espoused.
Faiz
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
>
>> Re: anyone who agrees with noted non-programmers Mike&Gavin must be
>> non-technical, stupid, uninformed, etc .... OK, go ahead and show them the
>> error of their ways. Anyone can write blogs.
>>
>
> I worry that if this is the level of care you take with reading and
> (mis)interpreting Adam's messages, that you might not be taking extreme
> care with evaluating consensus changes, even while tired or sleeping. I
> encourage you to evaluate both messages and source code more carefully,
> especially in the world of bitcoin. However, this goes for everyone and not
> just you. Specifically, when Adam mentioned your conversations with
> non-technical people, he did not mean "Mike has talked with people who have
> possibly not made pull requests to Bitcoin Core, so therefore Mike is a
> non-programmer". Communication is difficult and I can understand that, but
> we really have to be more careful when evaluating each other's messages;
> technical miscommunication can be catastrophic in this context. On the
> topic of whether you are a programmer, I suspect that ever since you built
> CIA.vc we have all known you're a programmer, Mike.
>
> - Bryan
> http://heybryan.org/
> 1 512 203 0507
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
> --
>
> My regards,
>
> Faiz Khan
>
> <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150615/4978e818/attachment.html>