<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">The more specific answer (from a user's
perspective) is that there is unanimous approval within the
constraints of the Bitcoin system. The constraint is that your
software must be compatible with merchants and exchanges for your
coins to have value. Stating "unanimous approval" without
identifying the constraint is misstating the issue.<br>
<br>
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. Most of the cultish answers completely
overlook this issue even though it is main point of the question.
<br>
<br>
Russ<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 6/24/2015 11:00 PM, Raystonn wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:COL402-EAS127289185B11D0D58E1F5E6CDAE0@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">> Consensus-code changes are unanimous. They must
be.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Excellent. Now we are getting to some actual written
rules. How about updating the BIP process documentation with
this? Everyone should be able to read the rules of the coin they
are buying.</p>
<p dir="ltr">One moment though. Can you tell me how this
particular rule came to be? The creator of Bitcoin violated this
rule many times. So it must have been adopted after his
departure. What process was followed to adopt this new rule? Was
there consensus for it at the time? A huge portion of the user
community is under the impression that Satoshi's written plans,
some of which violate this new rule, will be implemented. So
there certainly would not be consensus for this rule today.<br>
</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 24 Jun 2015 6:51 pm, Mark Friedenbach
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark@friedenbach.org"><mark@friedenbach.org></a> wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>I'm sorry but this is absolutely not the case,
Milly. The reason that people get defensive is that we
have a carefully constructed process that does work
(thank you very much!) and is well documented. We talk
about it quite often in fact as it is a defining
characteristic of how bitcoin is developed which
differs in some ways from how other open source
software is developed -- although it remains the same
in most other ways.<br>
<br>
</div>
Changes to the non-consensus sections of Bitcoin Core
tend to get merged when there are a few reviews, tests,
and ACKs from recognized developers, there are no
outstanding objections, and the maintainer doing the
merge makes a subjective judgement that the code is
ready.<br>
<br>
</div>
Consensus-changes, on the other hand, get merged into
Bitcoin Core only after the above criteria are met AND an
extremely long discussion period that has given all the
relevant stakeholders a chance to comment, and no
significant objections remain. Consensus-code changes are
unanimous. They must be.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>The sort of process that exists in standards bodies for
example, with working groups and formal voting procedures,
has no place where changes define the nature and validity
of other people's money. Who has the right to reach into
your pocket and define how you can or cannot spend your
coins? The premise of bitcoin is that no one has that
right, yet that is very much what we do when consensus
code changes are made. That is why when we make a change
to the rules governing the nature of bitcoin, we must make
sure that everyone is made aware of the change and
consents to it.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Everyone. Does this work? Does this scale? So far, it
does. Uncontroversial changes, such as BIP 66, are
deployed without issue. Every indication is that BIP 66
will complete deployment in the very near future, and we
intend to repeat this process for more interesting changes
such as BIP65: CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This isn't about no one stepping forward to be the
"decider." This is about no one having the right to decide
these things on the behalf of others. If a contentious
change is proposed and not accepted by the process of
consensus, that is because the process is doing its job at
rejecting controversial changes. It has nothing to do with
personality, and everything to do with the nature of
bitcoin itself.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
<div class="elided-text">On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at
5:07 PM, Milly Bitcoin <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:milly@bitcoins.info"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:milly@bitcoins.info">milly@bitcoins.info</a></a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0
0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">I have seen this
question asked many times. Most developers
become defensive and they usually give a very
vague 1-sentence answer when this question is
asked. It seems to be it is based on
personalities rather than any kind of
definable process. To have that discussion
the personalities must be separated out and
answers like "such-and-such wouldn't do that"
don't really do much to advance the
discussion. Also, the incentive for new
developers to come in is that they will be
paid by companies who want to influence the
code and this should be considered (some
developers take this statement as an insult
when it is just a statement of the incentive
process).<br>
<br>
The other problem you are having is the lead
developer does not want to be a "decider"
when, in fact, he is a very significant
decider. While the users have the ultimate
choice in a practical sense the chief
developer is the "decider." Now people don't
want to get him upset so nobody wants to push
the issue or fully define the process. Now
you are left with a broken, unwritten/unspoken
process. While this type of thing may work
with a small group of developers
businesses/investors looking in from the
outside will see this as a risk.<br>
<br>
Until you get passed all the personality-based
arguments you are going to have a tough time
defining a real process.<br>
<br>
Russ
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 6/24/2015 7:41 PM, Raystonn wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0
0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
I would like to start a civil discussion
on an undefined, or at least unwritten,
portion of the BIP process. Who should
get to vote on approval to commit a BIP
implementation into Bitcoin Core? Is a
simple majority of these voters
sufficient for approval? If not, then
what is?<br>
<br>
Raystonn<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>