📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26
📝 Original message:It is actually not odd at all that a formal process is dismissed out of
hand. It is all about protecting turf and holding on to power. If
there is a well defined process then that takes the power out of the
hands of the people who have been running the show and making up the
rules. In some cases developers see Bitcoin as their "baby" and they
think they must control it in order to protect it but in doing so they
can become an "overprotective parent." Another problem is that some
people in Bitcoin have disdain for the people they need such as
financial, economic, security, and legal experts. Some think they are
smarter than those people because they discovered Bitcoin first and they
think their knowledge of Bitcoin means they are also superior in all
these other areas. I have seen some discussions of developers who have
met with people from the financial sector and they come out of the
meeting with the attitude that all the experts are stupid and that
Bitcoiners have everything figured out. One developer tried to tell me
that you can't do systems engineering in Bitcoin because it involves
security rather than safety (of course that issue has been well vetted
and NIST has a whole series of documents to address that very issue
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsSPs.html).
Russ
On 6/26/2015 6:16 PM, Simon Liu wrote:
> If Bitcoin is a $3bn project where stakeholder interests are to be
> safeguarded, or if Bitcoin is to be compared to a civil engineering
> project where life and death is at stake, it seems only logical that a
> well-defined and well-documented process be introduced to properly
> evaluate proposed changes. Although too late for the block size debate,
> it seems odd that discussion of such a process is often dismissed out of
> hand.
>
> To maintain the current approach of supermajority consensus, based
> around ingrained wisdom, personal preference and unwritten rules would
> suggest that Bitcoin is still an experiment, in which case perhaps any
> decision regarding the block size should be based upon technical merit
> alone rather than economic interest.
>
> --Simon
>
>> You're the one proposing a change here; we're evaluating the safety of
> that change.
>
>> In civil engineering we have enough experience with disasters to know
>> that you can't give into political pressure to do potentially dangerous
>> things until the consequences are well understood; hopefully we'll learn
>> that in the consensus cryptography space before a big disaster rather
>> than after.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
Milly Bitcoin [ARCHIVE] /
npub1rv…hc5wt
2023-06-07 17:39:47
in reply to nevent1q…0y6c
Author Public Key
npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wtPublished at
2023-06-07 17:39:47Event JSON
{
"id": "ae61dd328420233bf562be5028cceabf054fa5d39649e9b6cc415b823d1b1c03",
"pubkey": "1b29d94ee81e1ee0479f1db4bc4ac887407bd470a0d7060e76f8ab27fdd57e50",
"created_at": 1686152387,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1936c15d372dc9e8a0eaf645dcff207375e90675dbebfadcf82370abc654737d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"223c939eb4f19187b48774ea5102e60182bf3f14052670af24bafae398730039",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"ec441dce91fdd87933cc9222deff2be2b3ac971939fd1f23aa1f9b61f898f361"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26\n📝 Original message:It is actually not odd at all that a formal process is dismissed out of \nhand. It is all about protecting turf and holding on to power. If \nthere is a well defined process then that takes the power out of the \nhands of the people who have been running the show and making up the \nrules. In some cases developers see Bitcoin as their \"baby\" and they \nthink they must control it in order to protect it but in doing so they \ncan become an \"overprotective parent.\" Another problem is that some \npeople in Bitcoin have disdain for the people they need such as \nfinancial, economic, security, and legal experts. Some think they are \nsmarter than those people because they discovered Bitcoin first and they \nthink their knowledge of Bitcoin means they are also superior in all \nthese other areas. I have seen some discussions of developers who have \nmet with people from the financial sector and they come out of the \nmeeting with the attitude that all the experts are stupid and that \nBitcoiners have everything figured out. One developer tried to tell me \nthat you can't do systems engineering in Bitcoin because it involves \nsecurity rather than safety (of course that issue has been well vetted \nand NIST has a whole series of documents to address that very issue \nhttp://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsSPs.html).\n\nRuss\n\n\n\n\nOn 6/26/2015 6:16 PM, Simon Liu wrote:\n\u003e If Bitcoin is a $3bn project where stakeholder interests are to be\n\u003e safeguarded, or if Bitcoin is to be compared to a civil engineering\n\u003e project where life and death is at stake, it seems only logical that a\n\u003e well-defined and well-documented process be introduced to properly\n\u003e evaluate proposed changes. Although too late for the block size debate,\n\u003e it seems odd that discussion of such a process is often dismissed out of\n\u003e hand.\n\u003e\n\u003e To maintain the current approach of supermajority consensus, based\n\u003e around ingrained wisdom, personal preference and unwritten rules would\n\u003e suggest that Bitcoin is still an experiment, in which case perhaps any\n\u003e decision regarding the block size should be based upon technical merit\n\u003e alone rather than economic interest.\n\u003e\n\u003e --Simon\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e You're the one proposing a change here; we're evaluating the safety of\n\u003e that change.\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e In civil engineering we have enough experience with disasters to know\n\u003e\u003e that you can't give into political pressure to do potentially dangerous\n\u003e\u003e things until the consequences are well understood; hopefully we'll learn\n\u003e\u003e that in the consensus cryptography space before a big disaster rather\n\u003e\u003e than after.\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e",
"sig": "96caef4a53a9a5dea105fca4e19c6cf0e8e26a393aece21ebcd5d2b90ccd75097ecb1575d23cb0e567a6c908dda4f9aa41cdd1e83a2b9859efb42fd631568e5a"
}