On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Milly Bitcoin <[email protected]> wrote: > "Cultish" means making claims without any supporting facts.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Milly Bitcoin <[email protected]> wrote: > As for developers, the consensus on code changes are almost never 100% and > someone has to make the decision about what is an a acceptable consensus. This statement seems "cultish" by your own definition. I'm going to make the opposite statement: the consensus on code changes is almost always 100%. Mark has already given a couple examples of changes to consensus rules (the most risky type of change), here's a few thousand other examples of changes to the bitcoin core's code that had no opposition: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master Can you please point us to a few examples were changes were made with opposition to them? In those cases (which you assure is what happens almost always), would you say that the result of letting a decider decide instead of fixing or addressing all the concerns (either by changing the proposed code or explaining it) better in restrospective? _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
