rich1.0npub1ts9hljj3l4yrpdxelpqdup3l46lw40fmkhw3rr0feh6s5ml247vqerfl5yhttps://nostr.ae/npub1ts9hljj3l4yrpdxelpqdup3l46lw40fmkhw3rr0feh6s5ml247vqerfl5ynjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18 📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 03:49:06PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote: > One reason I keep banging on about *process* and how Wladimir needs to be > The Decider is that the current attempt at "process" is so vague, not only > is it unexplainable, but it's wide open to manipulation. It looks as if you entirely missed my point. I'm The Decider for *code issues* regarding Bitcoin Core. Consensus issues should not be considered part of that, they span multiple implementations. So I'm *not* the decider for anything that concerns the behavior of the global consensus, and I cannot be, as I have explained in the previous post, and as Sipa explained in his. Speaking of process, let me remind you that there is a BIP processs: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0001.mediawiki If you think it's not clear enough, which may explain why you did not even attempt to follow it for your block size increase, feel free to make improvements. Wladimir -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVgtAOAAoJEHSBCwEjRsmmLPUH/1ug5pvLz6ptIhvuROclV7Jh z0Szk5FOqfg4ejT3nYV5LRV5WNHUGDdFnHZJRFsKYH9B0LFgOlnkc488Qg6hBb+1 rf5zEF/D2X4MhPIx6GqI++gvhDzdBH2t9yxbU7LVZALo7+wtW+ms5eHHFs8WrU0z m7NgiZRen4cpQUiBWHlt0PojmXBVZQNU0CD6ErcOpQXhN8J0sb0l0DuFswQgUqxk rrNe3LvKp89xT0kDxyzQts/CeIG/8kQYLwIJ1QQDXvYayj2aHHYMkSEWfDlew3IC zQkFgHCTGihGHPFeow+dnuW1DI1l92yPYNDLbxivSam3X+qCAGzUTOWTFE+iprk= =tE4K -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----