{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wt","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wt","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-25\n📝 Original message:These are the kind of silly responses you often get when this subject \ncomes up.  Mr. Garzik knows how to ignore messages he doesn't want so I \nsee no need for him to use the list to attack people he doesn't agree \nwith and/or try to interfere with discussions of others on the list.\nHe turns it into a personality discussion rather than a discussion of \nSystems Engineering.  He also tries to intimate anyone who brings up the \ndiscussion and \"punish\" them as a lesson to anyone else who may raise \nthe issue.\n\nIt is interesting that people like that are attracted to a decentralized \nsystem.   The reply is simply an attempt at protecting turf which is why \nMr. Garzik's vague replies are never taken seriously on the subject of \ndecision-making process for the software.\n\nRuss\n\n\nOn 6/25/2015 1:07 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e Ladies \u0026 gents, please do not feed the troll. This has been explained \n\u003e to Milly multiple times in the past, on previous mailing list \u0026 github \n\u003e with no impact.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Milly Bitcoin \u003cmilly at bitcoins.info \n\u003e \u003cmailto:milly at bitcoins.info\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e     I'm sorry but that is the kind of defensive, cultish response\n\u003e     everyone gets when they ask that question.  If you had a well\n\u003e     constructed documented process then you would be able to point to\n\u003e     it ... but you can't.  While there are a few bits and pieces\n\u003e     scattered  about in different places there is no coherent plan or\n\u003e     process.\n\u003e\n\u003e     It is easy to make statements like \"consensus must be unanimous\"\n\u003e     but the issue is that you never have true 100% consensus yet you\n\u003e     have to move forward in some fashion and everyone has to run\n\u003e     software with the same consensus rules.  The issue is how you move\n\u003e     forward is the question that nobody wants to answer because (a) it\n\u003e     is a hard question to answer and (b) developers see it as a threat\n\u003e     to their authority/position.  If people just keep shutting down\n\u003e     the discussion with a bunch of cultish stock answers then you are\n\u003e     never going to move forward with developing some kind of process.\n\u003e\n\u003e     From what I can see much of the discussion is personality-driven\n\u003e     and not based on Computer Science or and defined process.  The\n\u003e     issue is that a personality has changed so the process is\n\u003e     perceived to be different and some people want to hard fork. \n\u003e     Previously, the cultish answer is that Bitcoin development is\n\u003e     decentralized because people can fork the code.  Now that some\n\u003e     developers want to fork the code suddenly it is a big problem.  \n\u003e     Is forking the code part of the consensus process or is it the\n\u003e     work of the devil?   The fact that there is so much diverse\n\u003e     opinion on this shows a defined process has never been fully\n\u003e     vetted or understood.\n\u003e\n\u003e     I have worked on these processes for many years for projects\n\u003e     orders of magnitudes larger than Bitcoin.  I can absolutely assure\n\u003e     you the current mishmash does not scale and huge amounts of time\n\u003e     are wasted.  That should be readily apparent from the recent\n\u003e     discussions and the recent concern it has caused from people\n\u003e     outside the developer's inner circle.\n\u003e\n\u003e     Lack of defined process = high risk and wasted effort.\n\u003e\n\u003e     Russ\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e     On 6/24/2015 9:50 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:\n\u003e\u003e     I'm sorry but this is absolutely not the case, Milly. The reason\n\u003e\u003e     that people get defensive is that we have a carefully constructed\n\u003e\u003e     process that does work (thank you very much!) and is well\n\u003e\u003e     documented. We talk about it quite often in fact as it is a\n\u003e\u003e     defining characteristic of how bitcoin is developed which differs\n\u003e\u003e     in some ways from how other open source software is developed --\n\u003e\u003e     although it remains the same in most other ways.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e     Changes to the non-consensus sections of Bitcoin Core tend to get\n\u003e\u003e     merged when there are a few reviews, tests, and ACKs from\n\u003e\u003e     recognized developers, there are no outstanding objections, and\n\u003e\u003e     the maintainer doing the merge makes a subjective judgement that\n\u003e\u003e     the code is ready.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e     Consensus-changes, on the other hand, get merged into Bitcoin\n\u003e\u003e     Core only after the above criteria are met AND an extremely long\n\u003e\u003e     discussion period that has given all the relevant stakeholders a\n\u003e\u003e     chance to comment, and no significant objections remain.\n\u003e\u003e     Consensus-code changes are unanimous. They must be.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e     The sort of process that exists in standards bodies for example,\n\u003e\u003e     with working groups and formal voting procedures, has no place\n\u003e\u003e     where changes define the nature and validity of other people's\n\u003e\u003e     money. Who has the right to reach into your pocket and define how\n\u003e\u003e     you can or cannot spend your coins? The premise of bitcoin is\n\u003e\u003e     that no one has that right, yet that is very much what we do when\n\u003e\u003e     consensus code changes are made. That is why when we make a\n\u003e\u003e     change to the rules governing the nature of bitcoin, we must make\n\u003e\u003e     sure that everyone is made aware of the change and consents to it.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e     Everyone. Does this work? Does this scale? So far, it does.\n\u003e\u003e     Uncontroversial changes, such as BIP 66, are deployed without\n\u003e\u003e     issue. Every indication is that BIP 66 will complete deployment\n\u003e\u003e     in the very near future, and we intend to repeat this process for\n\u003e\u003e     more interesting changes such as BIP65: CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e     This isn't about no one stepping forward to be the \"decider.\"\n\u003e\u003e     This is about no one having the right to decide these things on\n\u003e\u003e     the behalf of others. If a contentious change is proposed and not\n\u003e\u003e     accepted by the process of consensus, that is because the process\n\u003e\u003e     is doing its job at rejecting controversial changes. It has\n\u003e\u003e     nothing to do with personality, and everything to do with the\n\u003e\u003e     nature of bitcoin itself.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e     On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Milly Bitcoin\n\u003e\u003e     \u003cmilly at bitcoins.info \u003cmailto:milly at bitcoins.info\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e         I have seen this question asked many times. Most developers\n\u003e\u003e         become defensive and they usually give a very vague\n\u003e\u003e         1-sentence answer when this question is asked.  It seems to\n\u003e\u003e         be it is based on personalities rather than any kind of\n\u003e\u003e         definable process.  To have that discussion the personalities\n\u003e\u003e         must be separated out and answers like \"such-and-such\n\u003e\u003e         wouldn't do that\" don't really do much to advance the\n\u003e\u003e         discussion. Also, the incentive for new developers to come in\n\u003e\u003e         is that they will be paid by companies who want to influence\n\u003e\u003e         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\n\u003e\u003e         the incentive process).\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e         The other problem you are having is the lead developer does\n\u003e\u003e         not want to be a \"decider\" when, in fact, he is a very\n\u003e\u003e         significant decider.  While the users have the ultimate\n\u003e\u003e         choice in a practical sense the chief developer is the\n\u003e\u003e         \"decider.\"  Now people don't want to get him upset so nobody\n\u003e\u003e         wants to push the issue or fully define the process.  Now you\n\u003e\u003e         are left with a broken, unwritten/unspoken process.  While\n\u003e\u003e         this type of thing may work with a small group of developers\n\u003e\u003e         businesses/investors looking in from the outside will see\n\u003e\u003e         this as a risk.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e         Until you get passed all the personality-based arguments you\n\u003e\u003e         are going to 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             I would like to start a civil discussion on an undefined,\n\u003e\u003e             or at least unwritten, portion of the BIP process.  Who\n\u003e\u003e             should get to vote on approval to commit a BIP\n\u003e\u003e             implementation into Bitcoin Core?  Is a simple majority\n\u003e\u003e             of these voters sufficient for approval?  If not, then\n\u003e\u003e             what is?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e             Raystonn\n\u003e\u003e             _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e             bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e             bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e             \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e\u003e             https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\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         \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e\u003e         https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\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     \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\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\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150625/3deb2320/attachment.html\u003e"}