Topic: Ignore this post, I just have to vent a little bit... (Read 2085 times)

+1!

Hits the nail on the head.

Please continue this approach Gavin

Best,
Graeme

No need to get sacrilegious about anything like you-know-who. Just tell everyone that you are really Satoshi and no one will question what you do from that point on. Either that or tell them Satoshi told you to kick you-know-who's ass.

^ this. I feel your pain.
The sad but true fact is - it seems that nowadays honesty is a liability.

"Thanks to Bitclockers, Bitlc.net, Bitcoin.cz, BitMinter, pool.itzod.ru, BTC Guild and ozco.in for supporting BIP 16"

I hope I'm not getting too personal... but a good politician would remove that signature and upload a friendlier profile photo.

I could be wrong.

yeah whatever, "holy grail" or not, we don't even have a simple wallet export/import or at least export to paper

Thats a good start back then, but obviously it missed its mark.

I think everyone is missing the mark truthfully, allowing multi signatures is the holy grail for bitcoin at this time, anything to help the scamming, lying, and what not.  

I wish it was just an update we all have to do, we do trust you, but having a choice is what we all want, and yet its the problem at the same time.

We all wish though, that it could be done in a way that requires no update.  Im not technical enough to say either way.

And simply, keep fighten the good fight, we all appreciate your work.

And I would direct attention to the first reply in that post as well.

I think you're underestimating the general interest "a bit"


that post is about  BIP_0011 BIP_0012 BIP_0013 not BIP_0016

I suppose I could have posted to the general Bitcoin Talk, but I didn't think that kind of low-level "plumbing" would be of general interest, any more than the average bitcoin user would care or notice a bunch of other low-level "plumbing" changes that are being made (I've got a patch pending that a certain-somebody doesn't like because it tightens up the definition of a "standard" transaction; I expect that if I pull that patch he'll start screaming that I'm wrecking future network flexibility all because I'm a big old worry-wart).

I did post to the Mining/Pools forum a couple of months ago looking for feedback because miners/pool operators are the people who are "voting" on the original proposal:
  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.604435

Totally, agree, but I know what its all about, and I took the time to look most of it up, but the fact remains..

No one knows, and most dont care.


Im behind you Gavin, but if you want change, people need to know you want it.

Ie, most bitcointalk people dont bother with reading the technical laden Development & Technical Thread.

I don't feel like I have to be informed about any particular issue.  My comments merely indicate that if Gavin et al wants support to be rushed through, there needs to be communication.  If this particular issue were left to evolve naturally instead of being pushed like it has been, I would not have taken notice of it nor would I have felt the need to be informed as I would have "upgraded" to the P2SH support eventually as time progressed.  But if the support is desired rapidly, then communication and coordination needs to take place.  That did not happen.

Because it is not technically possible to skip the "vote" without terrible consequences (a blockchain fork). Also, it's not a vote, but more like a census of the percentage of hash power that is ready for the change. The problem here is that you (along with many other people) are treating it like one, meaning that you feel like you have to be informed about the issue.

Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread, so that's all I'll say here.

Since I apparently now inadvertently have a horse in this race, I'll bite. 

Going forward, if you want something like this that requires the informed consent of the majority, you might try contacting the majority either on your own behalf or on Bitcoin's behalf, explaining the situation and suggestion either a course of action or asking for suggestions on how to proceed.

My principal problem in this situation is the lack of communication and the timeframe(s) involved.  You want a vote for a feature, but I didn't even know that feature existed, much less that it was up for a "vote" until about a week ago.  I understood even less about it up until recently, and I *still* don't understand it to the point where I feel I can cast an informed vote.  And I will not blindly vote for something I don't understand, contrary to Sturle's desire.

Then the issue of the "forced" vote through the codebase manipulation rubs me the wrong way... I'm fine putting in the OPTION to vote one way or the other, but forcing the vote to YES with no way to turn it off, except by modifying the source, is just plain wrong. 

That said, the argument then becomes "Well, we could have just made the change without a 'vote' of any sort."  True... so why wasn't that done?  If you want to have transparency, I applaud that, but then doing a 180 and sneaking by a majority vote is contradictory to that transparency.  If you want to have a dictator ship, well ok I will deal with that and either do my own thing or go along with the dictator... but what we had here was a hybrid of the two that doesn't sit well with anyone, and thus we find ourselves in this particular mess.

Just my 2c worth.

Gavin, you've already succumb to this. The first few days after some views contrary to yours were published, you just brushed them aside like a politician would and claimed that your views were "more perfect" than other peoples' views.

However, you got over it. And I respect you for that. As long as you remain honest and provide the same quality of evaluation for the views that compete with yours as you do for your own, the best idea will win in the end. I'm shocked that you were able to do it, honestly.

Because of this, I now support you entirely on this issue, but not as a leader. Bitcoin doesn't/shouldn't have a leader. I support you as a decision-maker.

Behind you Gavin, in the silent crowd

I can guess because I've seen some of the other posts. 

I don't know you, or much about you, but you conduct your self responsibly and have my earned respect.  Having a "vent" every now and then is healthy.

Gavin, to be honest, I have no idea what you're in reference to. And I'm not going to waste my time searching for, then dissecting it. That said, I stand behind you 1,000%. I know that in my heart of hearts you'll continue to do what's best for Bitcoin.

~Bruno~

PS: I love how you vent! Well written!

I always appreciate seeing your posts absent of absolutes. You know you have the best solution only when you can pick apart the flaws it contains.

While some people love politics and intrigue most people around here very much appreciate your transparent way of business.

By all means, keep it up. An invisible army of thousands of people silently supports you.