Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tell you what, eloquent guy... Give me 15 minutes in a public open mic session with you and i'll remove you from your high horse and close your voice in Bitcoin, for good. Guaranteed. You're too stupid for me to let you run loose with client funds

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

This list is about "Development discussion list for Bitcoin protocol and its implementation" So legal notices placed on the software is relevant to the list. It is also relevant that you go around speaking with authority when you have no idea what you are talking about. A copyright is a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

I prefer the term "clown". Can we please move on? -- Original Message -- From: "cipher anthem via bitcoin-dev" To: mi...@bitcoins.info Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Sent: 10/6/2015 12:17:14 AM Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

Just read the proposal for the dual modes... Think it would be best... Protocol question? Do we discuss the algorithms here on this forum? Or... Sorry again for my thick skull! Nina K Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 6, 2015, at 1:34 AM, NotMike Hearn via bitcoin-dev >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 In any case this is basically the purpose of version tracking software such as Git or CVS or any other. It would not be hard to figure out who had done what. I see you're splitting hairs over nothing as usual, though, Russ, so I'll leave you to it.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

I think I can solve the debate and give everyone what they want. Some people want BIP65, others do not. We can roll out 65 in a clever way, such that Greg/PeterT can get it, but Mike and Peter R don't need to have it (both versions can run alongside each other). Even better, people can switch

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sergio Demain, You and I have had our altercation, in private, about your assumptions of authority in this community. That was fine when you told me "for fuck's sake" on IRC. I'm a man and I made you see your error and apologize for your trespass.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > History has shown that for many decision making processes this doesn't > work, > and this argument has been made to Core. > Until today this was essentially a rule that hurt the things

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

On Monday 5. October 2015 18.03.05 Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 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. Unsuccessfully. > Simply making a noise does

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello, First, this only makes reference to hard forks not to soft forks. This is very important because we are trying to apply a hard fork requirement to a soft fork procedure which obviously won't work. Your statement that 'all objections coming

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

On Monday 5. October 2015 20.33.04 s7r via bitcoin-dev wrote: > For example, I don't see this controversial nor a violation of the BIP > requirements. Mike had some fair objections, they were explained by > gmaxwell and Jorge, everybody understood. The explanation is clear, > with plausible

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

Gregory, you are good at language and its easy to write eloquent words. Looking at this little dialog, for instance; On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner wrote: > > 1) ignores him, which is against the established criteria that all > > technical objections coming from anyone

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > CLTV deployment is clearly controversial. Many developers other than me > have noted that hard forks are cleaner, and have other desirable > properties. I'm not the only one who sees a big

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

On Monday 5. October 2015 18.04.48 Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > Unsuccessfully. > > I think rather successfully. Arguing that BIP66 rollout was a full success is in the same park of "successful" ? Where for weeks people were told not to trust the longest chain until it was 30 blocks. Lets put

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

For soft forks, consensus is required. In fact, we (today) have miners who individually choose to mine blocks that are completely empty, with no known input from (or communication with) the outside world. This is a consensus process. Users can switch back and forth all they like, and this only

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

> > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > On Oct 5, 2015, at 6:37 PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > On 10/5/2015 1:56 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >>

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

The copyright notice refers to the fact that each contributor owns copyright to his own contributions. There is no legal group that owns copyright to the entirety of the code. No, that is not what such a notice means. The part after the "c" in the circle is the legal owner. If the legal

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

Copyright doesn't care how notices are written. They are merely informative to humans reading them. Anyhow, this is not development related, so please direct any further discussion of it to me directly (with any applicable CCs) and NOT to the mailing list. Thanks, Luke On Tuesday, October

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

> If we want decentralization (or even mere stability), we must impose a > counterbalancing rule such that each past commit makes one *less* likely to > get their next commit pulled. For example, a "one man one commit" policy. Haha great stuff, NotMike! Indeed, it’s not enough to keep the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

Maybe you are confused with a compilation notice that would say "All Content Copyright and other rights reserved by its Respective Owners" or something similar. That is not the same thing as claiming ownership using the "c" inside the circle. There is also a difference between claiming a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

On Tuesday, October 06, 2015 3:39:59 AM Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev wrote: > In any case if I could get a list of "Core Developers" as referenced in > the copyright notice that would also be good since that is a legal notice. The copyright notice refers to the fact that each contributor owns

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > It is an eloquent change, but not really the topic we were discussing. It also > makes you attack Mike (calling him out as having a strawman) without basis. > For the second time in this

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Fortunately I can say that while we certainly value your opinion, when peoples > opinions are hard to read, as you indicated they can be, we should look at > their actions. The group has

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

It's pretty clear Mike has turned into concern troll and bully. He insults people, mischaracterizes others, quibbles over words and definitions and has stated numerous times in other forums he has no interest in building consensus changes he doesn't agree with himself. He's lost his integrity

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

On 10/5/2015 4:05 PM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev wrote: It's pretty clear Mike has turned into concern troll and bully. "troll" and, even worse, "concern troll" are terms generally used by teenagers on places like Reddit to complain about someone who doesn't agree with them. It is not

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

On 10/5/2015 1:56 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator contributors > that disagree. Since Gavin Andresen chose you to be one of 4 people who decides whose contributions are accepted to the Core project, shouldn't you recuse

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

Regular contributor? Please explain how for a fork in the protocol should you only listen to regular Bitcoin Core contributors? This is an artifact of a small centralized group of developers that wants to hold on to power. This is why there is so much objection to documenting some sort of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > On Monday 5. October 2015 20.56.34 Gregory Maxwell wrote: >> (In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator >> contributors that disagree). > > Regular contributor? > > Please

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Once again, let’s use the current gridlock Allow me to state unequivocally-- since we've had problems with people stating non-factuals as fact without getting adequately clear correction--,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 2:30 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> Once again, let’s use the current gridlock > > Allow me to state unequivocally-- since we've had problems

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

On 10/5/2015 5:30 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote: On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev wrote: Once again, let’s use the current gridlock there is no gridlock here and an effort to manufacturer one for political reasons

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

On Monday 5. October 2015 20.56.34 Gregory Maxwell wrote: > (In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator > contributors that disagree). Regular contributor? Please explain how for a fork in the protocol should you only listen to regular Bitcoin Core contributors?

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Monday 5. October 2015 20.56.34 Gregory Maxwell wrote: >> (In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator >> contributors that disagree). > > Regular contributor? > > Please

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

Even someone trying to disrupt the process and nothing else can help us learn by acting as an adversary that causes us to extend our minds and understanding. Interesting use of terms for a decentralized system. Can these terms be defined? "the process" "us" (is there also a "them"?) Russ

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

While this isn't really the place to discuss it, I respectfully disagree. Mike appears to be making a point concerning Bitcoin protocol authorship and on the perceived value of soft-forks. It doesn't look like simple trolling to me. Mike and Gregory are both extremely intelligent and

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

On Monday 5. October 2015 19.41.30 Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > > It is an eloquent change, but not really the topic we were discussing. It > > also makes you attack Mike (calling him out

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

I agree with you, Sergio, up until the part about someone having won a battle. There's a difference between sincere technical objections and someone just being a dick. I think in this case this line has been crossed (and I don't think I'm alone here). - Eric On October 5, 2015 8:56:33 AM PDT,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I also agree with Mike that Core's requirement for unanimous consensus > results in development grid lock and should be revisited. > There is no development gridlock. Look at the IRC logs

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

On 10/5/2015 6:56 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote: There is no development gridlock. Look at the IRC logs for core-dev; Please desist from this intellectual dishonesty and toxicity. A system where anyone can veto a change promotes gridlock. Most people not on the devlpoment team see

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 6:37 PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > On 10/5/2015 1:56 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator contributors >> that disagree. > > Since Gavin Andresen chose

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

I believe we should work to deprecate the idea that Core is somehow the “core of Bitcoin," I never did understand the terminology. There were "core developers" which i understood to mean the primary developers of the Bitcoin software. Then, suddenly, the software's name was changed from QT

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

On Monday, October 05, 2015 3:56:33 PM Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev 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

[bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

On 10/5/2015 12:56 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > As everyone in the Bitcoin community has been clearly told that > controversial changes to the consensus rules must not happen, it's > clear that CLTV cannot happen in its current form. ___

Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

Hey Sergio, To clarify: my *single* objection is that CLTV should be a hard fork. I haven't been raising never-ending technical objections, there's only one. I *have* been answering all the various reasons being brought up why I'm wrong and soft forks are awesome and there do seem to be a