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

[knight22]

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.

[BayAreaCoins]

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)

[BitProdigy]

A Proposal for the Consensus Building Process:

1) All BIP's have equal weight in the voting process.

2)Miners vote with each newly mined Block.

3) BIPs are revised and amended according to argument and reservations submitted so that they are molded into the best possible versions that everyone is happy with.

4) Once 75% of blocks mined within the last 1000 blocks is in support of one BIP, an alert is sent out to everyone indicating that they should switch over to supporting this BIP.

5) Once 90% of blocks mined within the last 1000 blocks indicates support of the BIP the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented, all blocks that do not include the new BIP protocol changes are after that point rejected.


Historically the threshold has been 95% such as with BIP69, but I suggest lowering that to 90%. Agree? Disagree?

A few of us are working on creating an Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community which will include this proposal. If you would like to help us shape this document PM me and I will send you a link to the Google Doc so you can help us write the letter.

[knight22]

- snip-

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

Why? Because he is pointing how the decision making process is actually broken which is true?

[BayAreaCoins]

- snip-

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

Why? Because he is pointing how the decision making process is actually broken which is true?

No because he's a threat to freedom and god only knows what else.



BEWARE OF MIKE HEARN ALL USER READING THIS

[BitProdigy]

Mike Hearn seems like he doesn't believe in the Decentralized Consensus Decision Making model at a deep philosophical level and he thinks we should elect a benevolent dictator to make decisions for us.

I disagree, I think the decentralized consensus decision making model works. We don't need a king to make a decision.

[knight22]

- snip-

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

Why? Because he is pointing how the decision making process is actually broken which is true?

No because he's a threat to freedom and god only knows what else.



BEWARE OF MIKE HEARN ALL USER READING THIS

I distrust Hearn probably more than you do. It doesn't make his statement less true nonetheless.

[Hellot]

The only thing Mike Hearn will agree with is himself.  He appears to want no other solution than the one that makes him the decision maker.
 
"To aid the technical consensus building process we are organizing a pair of workshops to collect technical criteria, present proposals and evaluate technical materials and data with academic discipline and analysis that fully considers the complex tradeoffs between decentralization, utility, security and operational realities."

He is complaining about people getting together to discuss paths forward and his complaint is that "nobody can write it down".  The process can't be written down because it is constantly evolving and Hearn will evolve or not be a factor.

[IIOII]

The only thing Mike Hearn will agree with is himself.  He appears to want no other solution than the one that makes him the decision maker.
 
"To aid the technical consensus building process we are organizing a pair of workshops to collect technical criteria, present proposals and evaluate technical materials and data with academic discipline and analysis that fully considers the complex tradeoffs between decentralization, utility, security and operational realities."

He is complaining about people getting together to discuss paths forward and his complaint is that "nobody can write it down".  The process can't be written down because it is constantly evolving and Hearn will evolve or not be a factor.

Couldn't have said it better!

However it's important to note that lead Altcoin-bully Mike Hearn has never been a relevant factor in Bitcoin Core development. It is really strange that he is given such a huge media presence.

[NeuroticFish]

If you read well between the lines, you can see all the info

Even if there was not a good/real decision making process, I can understand that. Bitcoin is still young.
But the current course of actions tell that in the future there will be a decision making process, which has to be made good.

Mike still doesn't seem to like that. Understandable, it'll make his decisions look foolish.

[chrisvl]

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)

It is logical to express your opinion but the way to express it is not reasonable,and I think the members of the community should not be expressed in the way as thou expressive,if everyone started cursing the forum will become a mess.
As old user and legendary rank you should give good example to the other members..

[dothebeats]

It's funny how Mike believes that some kind of a dictator should exist in a decentralized network to decide for all of us. It's just contradicting one of the main concepts of bitcoin lol. Do you XT guys really want centralization to happen in bitcoin because Mike believes that there is no such thing as 'consensus building process'? So in case there really is no such thing (there wasn't any, even Luke-jr admitted), they as the main devs of their proposal would make the decision for all of us to fix things? No, just no.

The process that served Bitcoin well to date was Satoshi being maintainer, and then Gavin.

Not an anti-Gavin here, but dude, let's face it, after Satoshi left bitcoin, Gavin was not the only one who developed it, there are other devs in the project contributing too. Yes, he was the lead dev, but it isn't right that all credits on bitcoin development should go to him.

[poeEDgar]

It's funny. The XT guys keep saying "the development process is centralized" as if it means something (in fact, that's a red herring and a moot point that has nothing to do with decentralization of the bitcoin protocol). And yet, they are willing to back Hearn's contention that bitcoin needs a benevolent "maintainer" that will push his own ideas forward when the other devs disagree.

That's all well and good, but don't be surprised when we oppose bad ideas pushed by such benevolent "maintainers."

[HostFat]

None is pushing anyone to run some code on your computer.
You are free to run the code that you prefer.

You are free to run the code from the """consensus model""" of the Bitcon Core, or the benevolent "maintainers" of the Bitcoin XT. (but there should be even other models, why not?)

[poeEDgar]

None is pushing anyone to run some code on your computer.
You are free to run the code that you prefer.

You are free to run the code from the """consensus model""" of the Bitcon Core, or the benevolent "maintainers" of the Bitcoin XT. (but there should be even other models, why not?)

Ah, but should we refrain from discussing the merits of any of the options? Or do you discourage that?

[jonald_fyookball]

Once again, Mike making more sense than the Blockstream clowns who want to wave a few workshops in your face and make you believe your opinion matters.

[poeEDgar]

Once again, Mike making more sense than the Blockstream clowns who want to wave a few workshops in your face and make you believe your opinion matters.

What are you suggesting?

Whether or not the consensus process is broken, Gavin and Hearn's code needs to stand on its own two feet and face rigorous testing. Such a reckless approach to scaling will never be supported by those who have a real stake in bitcoin.

[HostFat]

Such a reckless approach to scaling will never be supported by those who have a real stake in bitcoin.

Speak for yourself. Don't put opinions on the mouth of others.

[poeEDgar]

Such a reckless approach to scaling will never be supported by those who have a real stake in bitcoin.

Speak for yourself. Don't put opinions on the mouth of others.

Yeah, it was an opinion. And I stand by it. I have faith in the bitcoin community not to destroy itself (as misplaced as that faith may be).

[jonald_fyookball]

Once again, Mike making more sense than the Blockstream clowns who want to wave a few workshops in your face and make you believe your opinion matters.

What are you suggesting?

Whether or not the consensus process is broken, Gavin and Hearn's code needs to stand on its own two feet and face rigorous testing. Such a reckless approach to scaling will never be supported by those who have a real stake in bitcoin.

I'm suggesting Mikes comments make sense.  Blockstream's don't. 

Didn't Gavin run extensive tests on bigger blocks?  More important,
why is Blockstream stonewalling even bip102?