Author: Mark Friedenbach 2015-06-25 06:15:38
Published on: 2015-06-25T06:15:38+00:00
The context of this email thread involves a discussion on the process of establishing a new testnet for Bitcoin. Milly Bitcoin expresses frustration with the lack of a well-defined process and vague answers from developers when asked about it, suggesting that the issue is personality-driven rather than based on computer science or a defined process. Mark Friedenbach responds by explaining that consensus-code changes in Bitcoin Core require an extremely long discussion period to give all relevant stakeholders a chance to comment, and must be unanimous. He argues that this process has been carefully constructed and works well, ensuring that no one has the right to decide on behalf of others when it comes to changes that define the nature and validity of other people's money. Jeff Garzik, on the other hand, dismisses Milly's concerns as trolling and urges others not to feed the troll. Pindar Wong proposes that robust system testing and telemetry should precede voting in the process of mining consensus, but does not receive a direct response. In the midst of this discussion, someone shares a link to a testnet with 100MB blocks that does not require permission.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T00:53:59.942562+00:00