Devs have been saying for a long damn time that Hearn's role in Core development has been as a "cancer" that saps everyone's energy and constantly delays day-to-day work from being done. At some point, they will have gotten fed up. (Shrug)
Bitcoin is open source, Mike. Go fork off if you're unhappy, and if no one runs your shoddy code, you can fade off into irrelevance. (Oh, you've already begun that process
)
Bitcoin is open source, Mike. Go fork off if you're unhappy, and if no one runs your shoddy code, you can fade off into irrelevance. (Oh, you've already begun that process
)Proof of those devs?
I suppose the word Wladimir used here was "toxic" -- not "cancer."
There is plenty more discussion of his antics over time, but I can't be bothered to read through endless badly-organized threads to link to them.
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34221006/
Quote from: odinn
I maintain that you should apologize to those who traverse this list.
What you are saying is digging yourself a deeper hole and is not
merely embarrassing but is crossing a threshold in which you have used
words, albeit subtly, to attack a community.
If you refuse to apologize, I get it. You have not apologized thus
far, and pressing for an apology is unlikely to get an (authentic)
one. But then, you should voluntarily step back and let others do the
hard work of coming to the consensus that you seem to think is
impossible to accomplish based on how bitcoin is run.
I believe this matter will be resolved, but not with the "help" of
those who make threatening statements (and who are unable to apologize
for having made them).
What you are saying is digging yourself a deeper hole and is not
merely embarrassing but is crossing a threshold in which you have used
words, albeit subtly, to attack a community.
If you refuse to apologize, I get it. You have not apologized thus
far, and pressing for an apology is unlikely to get an (authentic)
one. But then, you should voluntarily step back and let others do the
hard work of coming to the consensus that you seem to think is
impossible to accomplish based on how bitcoin is run.
I believe this matter will be resolved, but not with the "help" of
those who make threatening statements (and who are unable to apologize
for having made them).
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34219062/
Quote from: Wladimir
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:00:17PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
>
> > Core is in the weird position where there's no decision making ability at
> > all, because anyone who shows up and shouts enough can generate
> > 'controversy', then Wladimir sees there is disagreement and won't touch the
> > issue in question. So it just runs and runs and *anyone* with commit access
> > can then block any change.
And allegations that the project is "run like wikipedia" or "an edit war" are verifyably untrue.
Check the commit history.
How many reverts do you see? How many of those do you see that are not simply to get rid of unexpected bugs, to be re-merged later?
Not much more than two, in ~5500 commit over six years. I feel sorry for you that `getutxos` was rejected in a messy way, still you are so held up about it and keep repeating it as if it is a daily occurence. Disingenuous, at the least.
Wladimir
>
> > Core is in the weird position where there's no decision making ability at
> > all, because anyone who shows up and shouts enough can generate
> > 'controversy', then Wladimir sees there is disagreement and won't touch the
> > issue in question. So it just runs and runs and *anyone* with commit access
> > can then block any change.
And allegations that the project is "run like wikipedia" or "an edit war" are verifyably untrue.
Check the commit history.
How many reverts do you see? How many of those do you see that are not simply to get rid of unexpected bugs, to be re-merged later?
Not much more than two, in ~5500 commit over six years. I feel sorry for you that `getutxos` was rejected in a messy way, still you are so held up about it and keep repeating it as if it is a daily occurence. Disingenuous, at the least.
Wladimir
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34219655/
Quote from: Bryan Bishop
I doubt that other bitcoin software maintainers would agree with that sort
of toxic reasoning; contentious hard-forks are basically a weapon of war
that you can use against any other collaborator on any bitcoin project. Why
would anyone want to collaborate on such a hostile project? How would they
even trust each other?
of toxic reasoning; contentious hard-forks are basically a weapon of war
that you can use against any other collaborator on any bitcoin project. Why
would anyone want to collaborate on such a hostile project? How would they
even trust each other?