Quote from: jonald_fyookball on October 02, 2015, 12:43:03 AM

Quote from: poeEDgar on October 02, 2015, 12:16:12 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 01, 2015, 11:51:57 PM

I do not find any of these quotes to be convincing evidence that there was sufficient grounds for banning Mike Hearn. Considering that these are also all quotes of other people attacking Mike Hearn. It would have been more convincing if you quoted Mike Hearn himself saying something that you think should have been justification for banning him. It does matter what we think of the developers however or even what their beliefs are, it should not be a popularity contest, what matters is what is in the code.

You completely missed the point. There can be no progress on the code when "every pull [Hearn] touches turns into a cesspool." Bitcoin is a collaborative project. If he refuses to collaborate with the other devs and continues to try to force unpopular opinions in the face of significant criticism, collaboration is impossible. Hence why he forked the code.

Go ahead and continue to ignore other developers' opinions in favor of your own unbacked opinions. But your ignorance of the context of the mailing lists is not compelling.

Here's a few more tidbits on why Hearn has been ostracized:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3n18en/mike_hearn_banned_from_bitcoindev_sept29/cvk0ko7
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3n18en/mike_hearn_banned_from_bitcoindev_sept29/cvjxbb5
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3n18en/mike_hearn_banned_from_bitcoindev_sept29/cvl1yae
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3n18en/mike_hearn_banned_from_bitcoindev_sept29/cvk1cpx
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3mvq61/scaling_bitcoin_092915/cvj8zf3

None of that means the core devs are right to forestall the block increase, nor does it make their apparent conflict of interest with blockstream any less troubling. Those very things make any silencing of Hearn suspicious.

Forestalling? I don't think that's an accurate representation. Most of the Core developers just don't see the same level of urgency that Gavin and Hearn do. I agree with them on that. Core developers have made several proposals regarding how to increase the block size limit (or otherwise address insufficient capacity). Analyzing, discussing, auditing, testing the code takes time and should not be rushed.

I haven't seen any compelling arguments as to this supposed conflict-of-interest with Blockstream, to be honest. I won't deny the possibility, but I just don't see the evidence. Regardless, [temp?] banning Hearn from a discussion is not covering anything up. The issues are out in the open.

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34220923/

Quote from: Matt Whitlock

An honest question: who is proposing inaction? I haven't seen anyone in this whole, agonizing debate arguing that 1MB blocks are adequate. The debate has been about *how* to increase the block-size limit and whether to take action ASAP (at the risk of fracturing Bitcoin) or to delay action for further debate (at the risk of overloading Bitcoin). Even those who are arguing for further debate are not arguing for *inaction*.

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34220953/

Quote from: Mark Friedenbach

Matt, I for one do not think that the block size limit should be raised at
this time. Matt Corallo also started the public conversation over this
issue on the mailing list by stating that he was not in favor of acting now
to raise the block size limit. I find it a reasonable position to take that
even if you feel the block size limit should be raised at some time in the
future, there are reasons why now is not the best time to do it.