Re: [Bitcoin-development] F2Pool has enabled full replace-by-fee
prima facie generally means that in a court case the burden of proof shifts from one party to another. For instance, if you have a federal trademark registration that is prima fascia evidence of those rights even though they could still be challenged. To say a prosecutor would have prima fascia evidence of a crime because double spend was detected is quite a stretch. On 6/19/2015 12:36 PM, Matt Whitlock wrote: On Friday, 19 June 2015, at 3:53 pm, justusranv...@riseup.net wrote: I'd also like to note that prima facie doesn't mean always, it means that the default assumption, unless proven otherwise. Why would you automatically assume fraud by default? Shouldn't the null hypothesis be the default? Without any information one way or another, you ought to make *no assumption* about the fraudulence or non-fraudulence of any given double-spend. -- ___ 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
Re: [Bitcoin-development] improving development model (Re: Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers
- Did you accept payment from companies to lobby for 20MB blocks? Do you consider that something appropriate to publicly disclose if so? Do you consider that user rights should come above or below company interests in Bitcoin? FWIW on pondering that last question should user rights come above or below company interests I think my view of the guiding principle is starkly clear to me: that user rights should be the primary thing to optimise for. Businesses are providing service to users, their interests are secondary in so far as if they are enabled to provide better service thats good. Bitcoin is a user p2p currency, with a social contract and a strong user ethos. Importing and forcing company interests would likely be the start of a slippery slope towards an end to Bitcoin. I always thought is was the exact opposite. I thought it was expected that the only incentive for developers (other than increasing the value of coins they hold) is to lobby for changes that will benefit the companies that fund them. That is the only way you are going to get more full time developers on board. It focuses their efforts on products and services people want rather than some sort philosophical agenda that may be unrealistic. The notion that large numbers of volunteers will do all this work at little or no pay to improve user experience is not a realistic long term plan. I also think it is incorrect to assume some kind of social contract and strong user ethos. While many early users are like that I think most potential users of Bitcoin don't think that way. Russ -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers
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. The person who decides if a pull request is accepted is a decider and significantly affects the behavior of the global consensus. The only option for someone who doesn't agree is to hard fork. There is no way around that and you should just accept that fact and move on. Russ -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers
You misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying I have a specific process that should be followed, I am saying that whatever the process is then it should be formalized or at least written down. That way the stakeholders have something to work with and keeps people on track. Since some people are saying they don't really know what the process is the first step would be to describe the current process. I don't fully understand the current process but I can see it is not formalized and nobody can even give me a clear description of what it is. Once you have it written down then changes/improvements can be proposed. The first baby step was already done by the Foundation in developing that risk study. A NIST guide for developing such a document is at http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-30-rev1/sp800_30_r1.pdf. No one person can come up with this and it would take buy in from several different people who have expertise in specific technical areas as well as experts in coming up with test plans. I recently suggested to the people running the MIT lab that they look into developing a program along those lines. Gavin also recently suggested that list of Bitcoin metrics be developed to help resolve the current disputes. I can help develop this process if there is interest. Russ On 6/18/2015 11:46 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 This kind of thing always happens as projects become larger and more diverse. Something that was once a small group turns into a big group of diverse stakeholders. When it gets too big for the informal processes then some people get upset and defensive. Happens all the time but it is not really a good excuse to keep doing things in an inefficient manner. The old ways just don't scale and if you ever worked on massive projects then you know these formal processes work better. So then: make a proposal for a better process, post it to this list. In practice there has been zero interest in improving the BIP process. E.g. the BIP process was adapted from the Python Enhancement Proposals by Amir Taaki (in 2009 or so?). It hasn't really changed since then, apart from some spelling and grammar corrections. It is not specifically adapted to Bitcoin, and doesn't make a distinction between for example, consensus changes and non-consensus changes. So that's up to someone to do. You seem to be enthousiastic about it, so go ahead. Wladimir -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVgufFAAoJEHSBCwEjRsmmAmYIAI9ndrMoqEuoaP5t+7W42UuH sh5qR7hojCCoZZl1N+rQ63UXcPBO/V4NUkUG97S3qpEFDzuoYSbOX2Eh+TRfK+s+ U+BpLhWteSexJ3N9aiFuR0q5jgesAzLZ9wtq1gCPI/Zu5/fgYBP4AVTiQGdXCZtv m6ZDKCf+aB/fW/59/AiY44NkMDjVQieEVRiT1IPFJULWesOOdtv7UoqIpz0vDa/5 Jplm41j8IpTPioJKSwUi5qzSDrF7O39PC9LMXNRx/0FIuYfwqJpvF0Frc+vtPpjQ llKE7945uMXz3FLSV0Orx26XPal/MuF5AYOPNk6pJfwYw7q91AUvQxVFepBa9vw= =dMO9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers
2) Changes to the consensus rules: As others have said, this isn't anyone's decision for anyone else. It's up to each individual user as to what code they run and what rules they enforce. So then why is everyone so up in arms about what Mike and Gavin are proposing if everyone is free to decide for themselves? Because the notion that people are free to decide for themselves is just a rough approximation of the real world situation. If your software does not agree with merchants and exchanges you can't pay your bills and if Bitcoin splits the exchange rate could plummet and damage the ecosystem. People are free to decide within the constraints of the Bitcoin system. Russ -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
