{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1jr34gu65jpq9770ehxzw032lsmj8zfxctrcyngn8d8498m5parvqhug3vh","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1jr34gu65jpq9770ehxzw032lsmj8zfxctrcyngn8d8498m5parvqhug3vh","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-15\n📝 Original message:I'm quite puzzled by the response myself, it doesn't seem to address some\nof the (more serious) concerns that Adam put out, the most important\nquestion that was asked being the one regarding personal ownership of the\nproposed fork:\n\n\"How do you plan to deal with security \u0026 incident response for the duration\nyou describe where you will have control while you are deploying the\nunilateral hard-fork and being in sole maintainership control?\"\n\nI do genuinely hope that whomever (now and future) wishes to fork the\nprotocol reconsider first whether they are truly ready to test/flex their\nreputation/skills/resources in this way... Intuitively, to me it seems\ncounterproductive, and I don't fully believe it is within a single\ndeveloper's talents to manage the process start-to-finish (as it is\nnon-trivial to hard-fork successfully, others have rehashed this in other\nthreads)...\n\nThat being said I think it appropriate if Adam's questions were responded\nin-line when Mike is feeling up to it. I think that the answers are\nimportant for the community to hear when such a drastic change is being\nespoused.\n\nFaiz\n\nOn Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Bryan Bishop \u003ckanzure at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Re: anyone who agrees with noted non-programmers Mike\u0026Gavin must be\n\u003e\u003e non-technical, stupid, uninformed, etc .... OK, go ahead and show them the\n\u003e\u003e error of their ways. Anyone can write blogs.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e I worry that if this is the level of care you take with reading and\n\u003e (mis)interpreting Adam's messages, that you might not be taking extreme\n\u003e care with evaluating consensus changes, even while tired or sleeping. I\n\u003e encourage you to evaluate both messages and source code more carefully,\n\u003e especially in the world of bitcoin. However, this goes for everyone and not\n\u003e just you. Specifically, when Adam mentioned your conversations with\n\u003e non-technical people, he did not mean \"Mike has talked with people who have\n\u003e possibly not made pull requests to Bitcoin Core, so therefore Mike is a\n\u003e non-programmer\". Communication is difficult and I can understand that, but\n\u003e we really have to be more careful when evaluating each other's messages;\n\u003e technical miscommunication can be catastrophic in this context. On the\n\u003e topic of whether you are a programmer, I suspect that ever since you built\n\u003e CIA.vc we have all known you're a programmer, Mike.\n\u003e\n\u003e - Bryan\n\u003e http://heybryan.org/\n\u003e 1 512 203 0507\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e\n\u003e My regards,\n\u003e\n\u003e Faiz Khan\n\u003e\n\u003e  \u003chttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150615/4978e818/attachment.html\u003e"}