rich1.0npub1lhe3qfx2q5m7mq5d39waepf9lzhsy0cdey66svn63fyk6rt6n7ps7zg7edhttps://nostr.ae/npub1lhe3qfx2q5m7mq5d39waepf9lzhsy0cdey66svn63fyk6rt6n7ps7zg7ednjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05 📝 Original message:You are absolutely right and this is something I have often unsuccessfully tried to explain as "disruption strategies". The problem is that most people in the technical community assume good faith at all times, which plays right into the frame required for disruption. However, I would like to challenge your assumption of point 1 that that by Mike making a rabble, it somehow makes CLTV deployment controversial. His arguments have been refuted. Mike has not presented anything convincing and history actually shows that ISM works, and we have learned how to make it even more streamlined. We know ISM has consensus because miners have accepted ISM for past softfork rollouts. Simply making a noise does not make something controversial. When it is controversial, it is obvious and plain to see. On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Some of the people on this mailing list are blindly discussing the > technicalities of a soft/hard fork without realizing that is not Mike's > main intention. At least I perceive (and maybe others too) something else > is happening. > > Let me try to clarify: the discussion has nothing to do with technical > arguments. I generally like more hard forks than soft forks (but I won't > explain why because this is not a technical thread), but for CLTV this is > quite irrelevant (but I won't explain why..), and I want CLTV to be > deployed asap. > > Mike's intention is to criticize the informal governance model of Bitcoin > Core development and he has strategically pushed the discussion to a > dead-end where the group either: > > 1) ignores him, which is against the established criteria that all > technical objections coming from anyone must be addressed until that person > agrees, so that a change can be uncontroversial. If the group moves forward > with the change, then the "uncontroversial" criteria is violated and then > credibility is lost. So a new governance model would be required for which > the change is within the established rules. > > 2) respond to his technical objections one after the other, on never > ending threads, bringing the project to a standstill. > > As I don't want 2) to happen, then 1) must happen, which is what Mike > wants. I have nothing for or against Mike personally. I just think Mike > Hearn has won this battle. But having a more formal decision making process > may not be too bad for Bitcoin, maybe it can actually be good. > > Best regards > from a non-developer to my dearest developer friends, > Sergio. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151005/a541ef59/attachment.html>