"And I never had a problem with Bitcoin-XT while it was just a patch-set with no consensus changes. But a controversial hard fork of the chain is something else completely."
How is that different? The only difference is in who makes the fork and if that group has a chance of actually splitting/overriding the network. So Mike and Gavin are using the trust and relationship they have garnered through Bitcoin for their purposes (malicious or not). There are only 20-30 people with the same kind of recognition who would be able to do that. M&G already wanted to make a fork in 2014 for entirely different reasons (http://pastebin.com/3kt5Reeh). On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Wladimir J. van der Laan <laa...@gmail.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 02:29:42PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Wladimir J. van der Laan <laa...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Like in any open source project there is lots of decision making ability >> > for code changes. I'd say look at the changelog for e.g. 0.11 >> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.11/doc/release-notes.md#0110-change-log, >> > or follow pull requests for a while, to see how many decisions about >> > changes are made from day to day. No, I'm not sitting on my hands, and so >> > is none of the other contributors that you'd like to get rid of. >> > >> >> The analogy goes further even. Even though I disagree with some of the >> changes you're making, I respect Mike's (and anyone's) right to make a fork >> of Bitcoin Core. That's how open source works: if people disagree with >> changes made or not made, they can maintain their own version. However: > > Sure. According to github, there exist 4890 forks of the bitcoin/bitcoin > repository. > > Forking the code is perfectly fine in itself, that doesn't even need to be > said, it's how open source works. Make your changes, run your own version, > contribute back the changes (or not). > > And I never had a problem with Bitcoin-XT while it was just a patch-set with > no consensus changes. But a controversial hard fork of the chain is something > else completely. > > Wladimir > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1 > > iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVgr5LAAoJEHSBCwEjRsmm5mMH/0yLGGQQefRVdmM/nJZ60b/z > iTCUUzY4eLL67FRC6pqGA18RdUt4Etl4wEqvgXH/B9mWIAM2yQD/jnxutYrEIoBT > 8Jyd1OhmmKF8MN5/uE7JNPivIuHs0ioF+qTxlbdElpVZ2NodVotznbTvuqJgXUFb > c9Et5L5n7g55uPzDt+MSV5iBDJaMiBAnZA00aTLGmYmNXxcy7xBwCFX3dDij8krv > 0+zdpNNAKm85k1rG2jHCM+0onu+TOIur03pPd5OZktgr18P6UvAQ6A59yAkGgFai > 4l6VVNJ40g3PzItGQ7wsKZ8s/qG5LlcEppxMlG6CX1dIDpxbrwx2aJmeNjwSLKQ= > =LbA3 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
