Mike Hearn response to "An Open Letter to the Bitcoin Community"

[meono]

It's about how to reach a consensus on a complex topic

You don't need any vote for the validity of "1+1=2", you always reach 100% consensus. The reason you need to vote is because the topic is too complex that majority of participants can not grasp

However, if a topic is too difficult for majority to understand, then you have a complexity problem: The complexity make participants lose their decision making ability, thus they have to rely on political practice (to be more precise, dice casting) to make a decision

In such case, I guess simulation will be a better way to see into the future: Suppose that an airplane's crew member are all dead fighting terrorists, none of the survivors have ever flied an airplane, your best bet is to let the one who have played a lot of flight simulation to land the airplane

Lol another dumb analogy again. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself? Can you just stop talking about things you dont understand?

[johnyj]

It's about how to reach a consensus on a complex topic

You don't need any vote for the validity of "1+1=2", you always reach 100% consensus. The reason you need to vote is because the topic is too complex that majority of participants can not grasp

However, if a topic is too difficult for majority to understand, then you have a complexity problem: The complexity make participants lose their decision making ability, thus they have to rely on political practice (to be more precise, dice casting) to make a decision

In such case, I guess simulation will be a better way to see into the future: Suppose that an airplane's crew member are all dead fighting terrorists, none of the survivors have ever flied an airplane, your best bet is to let the one who have played a lot of flight simulation to land the airplane

Lol another dumb analogy again. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself? Can you just stop talking about things you dont understand?

Lol another dumb sentence again. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself? Can you just stop talking about things you don't understand?

I throw your words back to you. You see, all your talk here are empty templates that can apply to anyone anything, does not make any sense

[tss]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3j8rg1/an_open_letter_to_the_bitcoin_community_from_the/cunzj9z

I wasn't asked to sign it. The first time I saw it was today.
Regardless, now I've read it, the letter contains a few statements I would have found it tough to agree with.
It refers to "the consensus building process". There is no such process. This point has been hammered home over and over again by now, but unfortunately, the Bitcoin Core developers seem to be in denial about it. Whenever we ask somebody to write down this process or tell us what it is, most of them go silent and Adam points to "BIP 1", which doesn't specify any decision making process or means for resolving disagreement. It suggests a continuation of the mentality that every decision has one clearly correct answer on which literally everyone can agree if only there is enough time spent talking. That's clearly not the case here.
I'm honestly not sure what else I can do at this point. The Core developers continue to insist that they have some deeply scientific, academic and professional decision making process. They just won't say what it is. They will say, though, "give it more time".
It says:

We ask the community to not prejudge and instead work collaboratively to reach the best outcome through the existing process and the supporting workshops
This sounds fantastic - there is an existing process and the workshops will support that process.

But this just continues to reflect confusion around what these workshops are actually intended to do. The website FAQ says:
https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/

Absolutely no decisions are made at workshops
There will probably be no debate

Additionally it says governance will not be discussed.
So we have a project that has no formal process (or even an informal one really), yet claims the workshops will help support that process, whilst simultaneously saying that the workshops won't involve any decision making or governance discussion.
I find this to be a rather inconsistent approach.
The final statement I'd disagree with is this one:

We believe this is the way forward and reinforces the existing review process that has served the Bitcoin development community (and Bitcoin in general) well to date

The process that served Bitcoin well to date was Satoshi being maintainer, and then Gavin. That was the case up until April of last year. Lots of people really don't like this idea because it sounds so fragile, but for most of Bitcoin's history technical disputes were resolved through Gavin making proposals, listening to feedback and then making a decision in reasonable amounts of time. Bitcoin was not being served by this non-existent fairy tale process that the existing Bitcoin Core guys want so badly to believe in.

Fuck Mike, fuck XT, fuck you and fuck Coinwallet.eu. (199.27.135.46)

i have been quiet for quite some time on this subject hating and stressing in my head. hard to keep up the fight against all of the fud being posted. it really takes the energy out of you.

you my friend hit the nail on the head. +21m

Fuck Mike, fuck XT, fuck you

edited for clarity

[tadakaluri]

Interestingly this is his last tweet:

I'm getting a few mistaken follows due to sharing a name with a Bitcoin dev. I like Bitcoin, I wrote about it once, I don't develop for it.

[brg444]

Interestingly this is his last tweet:

I'm getting a few mistaken follows due to sharing a name with a Bitcoin dev. I like Bitcoin, I wrote about it once, I don't develop for it.

Well that's obviously cause it is indeed not the right guy 

This is Mike's twitter account https://twitter.com/OctSkyward

[Kakmakr]

Gavin said something that is very true. You cannot fall back on a system where a benevolent dictator makes all the final decisions, like it was done when he was still the Lead maintainer, as he called it. Why? Because that person can get run down by a truck as he put it and you will have a leadership void. 

I just know one thing, the status quo is not working and needs to be improved. If workshops is the answer for this, then we have to explore it, before we wipe it off the table as a possible solution. That is one way of doing it, and we need to explore it.

The workshop at least give more that 5 people a opportunity to state their case and to raise their concerns. ^hmf^