Topic: How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People - page 7. (Read 29579 times)

Somewhat true.  The developers can decide to make whatever changes that they want, but if the majority of the miners do not support the changes, then it doesn't matter much what the developers actually want.  So it really comes down to convincing enough pool owners and miners that the change is worthwhile.  However tech savvy the miners may be, they are not all developers themselves, and dissent among the development team seeds confusion among the miners.  Tycho's insistence for more time, in light of some dissent, is a wise man's opinion.  I, for one, don't know enough about programming to even know what I'm looking at, so I (personally) have to trust someone.  I favor Gavin because he was knighted by Satoshi long ago, for good or bad.  It's entirely possible that I'm in error doing so, but if this is really a near-term security issue, then something must change and Gavin is (IMHO) the commander of necessary changes.  Even if a near term bug fix isn't forthcoming, a checkpoint update every few days would be prudent.  Of course, that means that we would need someone qualified to actually monitor the blockchain with human eyes to make sure that there have been no attempts to capitalize on this bug before releasing the next checkpoint upgrade, but at least then it won't be required that everyone participate, since if there is an attack that screws up the blockchain, a valid copy of it will still exist somewhere on the network that will allow us to contain damage.

We have proverb in x-USSR after WWII (doubt a lot of people follow it now) "We,Russians, don't abandon our people"

If Luke wants Bitcoin to succeed, if he is putting effort into it he is "our" guy... You can not simply "boot off" him from Bitcoin bus.

We have a SAME goal but different views on it... if we will boot off people like this - nobody will be there to reach it...

We must find a way how to solve this rumble, but don't say "he must step back"...

Fuck - let this Bitcoin to be what it is and write new, better Bitcoin, I don't know... This will be an achievement and not a life hack!

testnet both and decide on which is better in 6-12month ?

My guess is that [Tycho] is ultimately the person with the most control over the final say, and he is choosing to not act at this point.  If he changes his mind, this will probably be a done deal.

I agree.   If one of them needs to go, there's no doubt in my mind that it should be Luke, absolutely.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that all the core devs agreed on BIP 16 initially, but Luke was away at the time.  Upon his return, he disagreed with 16 and all this crap happened as a result.   From my perspective, I don't understand how it was allowed to get this far if only one person from a team of devs disagreed with the proposal.   The majority was in favour of it, therefore it should have been accepted as far as I'm concerned.

Nope. Bitcoin is not a team. It is many teams in a community and part of a process. In project development, relationships aren't always and sometimes shouldn't be cordial.

For instance a regulator and the company they are overseeing, should not have a cordial relationship. Or upstream and downstream if they are functioning properly will have a contentious relationship; I've had some vicious past arguments with downstream before but we remained amicable and professional while disagreeing.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_projects#Tips_On_Upstreaming_Patches

Many of the characterisations I see people making all the time comparing bitcoin to a business, a team or charity (to name a few) are unrealistically simple and naive.

Amir Taaki's comment from a year ago was unimpressive to me.  Of course I do not know if that is the Intersango Amir Taaki or not.

Gavin, I think you should separate 2 issues. This is not about an Opensource Project called "Official Bitcoin Client". The client is not really important - it's a reference implementation, nothing more. This is really about the *standard* any client must implement.

The movie you linked to is only about how an Opensource Project should deal with, what they call, "poisonous" people. But this simply is not about code. Perfectionism can be an impediment when it comes to code, but when it comes to a standard, perfectionism is essential.

I can't judge the BIPs for their merit, but it seems to me that this new standard did not have sufficient time to mature yet. Maybe the current quarrel should be looked at as a constructive effort to enhance a standard that is, in my humble understanding, revolutionary. You must get it right the first time. Please take your time!

The concept of "team" is very important in all organizations and maybe even more so in open source projects.  Team interaction and communication is key.  If a person cannot communicate, lay down his ego, or continually brings up old issues then the whole team breaks down resulting in software paralysis.

It's not called to step back... it's called step forward... because our goal is more important than us.

The only thing I can "find on" Luke - other developers do not support his idea...

When you have money involved, trust is out of the question so we're left with politeness, respect and humility.

edit: very good points in that video http://youtu.be/ZSFDm3UYkeE?t=20m32s

Wow.....
People really need to watch this video before they comment further to defend Luke-Jr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE

For what it's worth, Gavin, you have my full support on this (not implying I'm anyone important in the project, just voicing an opinion).  Luke, you need to step back, take a breather.  As Mike said, you have lots of talent, but you need to work on your judgement.

I think we're now talking about who to throw off the Bitcoin development bus (and who to anoint as the supreme, ultimate, forever, etc. etc. dictator of Bitcoin client development), as if we have a say or are involved with Bitcoin's development on that level. I would still prefer to see a fist-fight to the death.

You must put fat IMHO after your words..

You guys starting to behave like a bitches that decide which of the guys will spend more money on them....

WTF you are talking about? USA elections still far away...

you want to convince me that Gavin is a good father ( I saw his album ) and Luke was jerking when he was 18  and smoking weed every other day.. this is why BIP 16 is better???

Luke's technical solutions are generally based on some sort of pattern orthodoxy and completely disregard anything practical.

There is no dispute over whether BIP 16 and BIP 17 will accomplish the desired multisignature feature.  The difference between the two is in what kinds of problems we should anticipate going forward.  This is a practical problem, more so than a technical one.  I trust Gavin with the foresight on this far more than Luke.  Gavin will almost certainly be around to provide solid direction toward solving any problem that pops up.  Luke most certainly will not.

Luke is still stuck trying to get the world to count in base 16, oblivious to what kind of practical problems such a change would involve, and persists in doing it today.  Imagine the confusion and resource waste that already surrounds using US units and metric together, and square it.  Luke is definitely not the person whose vision I would trust.

Luke possesses a bunch of wonderful skills, but extremely poor judgment.  Luke's proposal would have to be breathtakingly better than the one Gavin supports for me to support him on it, and yet it is not.

for me personally, Gavin was a huge reason i decided to support Bitcoin.  i graduated from a top notch graduate institution and as snooty as it might sound, he being a Princeton graduate does carry some credibility.  its a vetting process whether we like it or not.

there are many brilliant people here on the Forum.  Luke is obviously one of them.  but i would never put my support behind even THE most brilliant if i never met them and had a chance to evaluate their integrity.

brilliance can be used for subversion.

just sayin' as well.

Yes, there is some true to this, especially when it comes to extremes. But what can happen on the other hand is someone being excluded from the project because he didn't agree with the project leader on one issue, and the project leader happens to have more friends here on the forum than that person. That is not right either. This is not the "surviver" after all, where you must form alliences and win over friends to get somewhere, this is supposed to be won by the best solution, not the best person. Just sayin.

Bring your baby sitter to choose BIP... your are so stupid.. sorry for offense..

Next time ask dick size of the developers... on camera... with ruler