Wheels of Censorship have been engaged at #bitcoin-dev, Mike Hearn has beed banned!

[kerneldump]

Wheels of Censorship have been engaged at #bitcoin-dev, Mike Hearn has beed banned!

Crime: Taboo talk about blocksize.
Punishment: Life Ban.
Executed by: Wladimir J. van der Laan
Replay available at: https://archive.is/jPph0
Big Winner: BlockStream Mafia

Ladies and gentlemen, our course is clear. The time has come to knuckle under. To get down on all fours and really lick BlockStream Boot. Give our real Fiat_Currency or BlockStream masters whatever they want!

[Jpage]

Unbelievable if true. Under no circumstance, no matter how much Hearn annoys Vaan Der Weinie, is it ever good to win the argument by shoving a sock into your opponent's mouth. This will produce a very bad result for Blockstream who clearly wants to own the bitcoin protocol.

[rogerver]

Perhaps it is time to setup IRC.Bitcoin.com

Would anyone be interested in this?
Does any one have experience with this sort of thing?

[YouCanDoAnything]

After tracking whats going on, I get the sense that this is like a family fight between siblings.

Im not convinced its a lifetime ban. Despite the infighting thats going on, at the end of the day the core devs all trust each other and giving devs another avenue to split the discussion may hurt more than help.

Im afraid this is a situation where we need to sit back and hope they resolve it between themselves.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Bad move. A "Life Ban" seems way too much. Hopefully Mike will stay with bitcoin and join this forum in the next months.

[LiteCoinGuy]

18:12 CodeShark_ We're already getting pushback for the "no philosophy nor politics in the bitcoin-dev mailing list" - this will not work until we've created a functioning bitcoin political philosophy list and can have more of a "we think you'll find more relevant discussion there" attitude rather than a "we don't want you here" attitude
18:13 jgarzik CodeShark_, don't be overly sensitive. push back is inevitable. the list needs to be productive for productive contributors.
18:13 wumpus someone else could also create a bitcoin political philosophy list, why would 'we' (whoever that is) have to do everything
18:14 jgarzik CodeShark_, the two-step plan is sound
18:14 wumpus what matters for us is a useable development list
18:14 stonecoldpat i heard there was a bitcoin mailing list that exists already?
18:14 kanzure jgarzik: fwiw i think your summary of the preivous conversations was less good than your usual summaries. you missed a lot!
18:15 kanzure CodeShark_: yes i think that's a reasonable approach, but also one quick way around that is to nominate recent threads for inclusion for pre-seeding (or re-play)
18:15 CodeShark_ I've already offered to help create this list, wumpus
18:15 jgarzik kanzure, That should motivate you to reply with a better summary! Smiley
18:16 CodeShark_ Moreover, warren had requested bitcoin-discuss from linuxfoundation
18:17 kanzure jgarzik: hardly; i think you could do better by just linking to the recent conversations in the irc logs instead.
18:17 jgarzik kanzure, burden of searching is too high. they are poorly organized and annoying to link to
18:18 kanzure what would make that easier for you/others?
18:18 CodeShark_ jgarzik: it's not about being overly sensitive - it's about keeping everyone happy as best we can so that we can all continue doing what we like to do
18:19 jgarzik CodeShark_, That is the goal. But like perfection it is unattainable, only approached. My point was that there will always be complaints from somebody; those complaints need to be weighted.
18:20 CodeShark_ moreover, I think bitcoin political philosophy deserves to be discussed...and I think we can accomplish two objectives here
18:21 kanzure not sure if linuxfoundation will want to host a mailing list that essentially amounts to cypherpunks- but great if they're okay with that
18:21 jgarzik "already getting pushback" is therefore a bit over-stated. There was one complaint from a non contributor, assuming you exclude hearn's not-really-related reply.
18:21 hearn how was it not related
18:22 jgarzik hearn, conflates Bitcoin Core and list admin & policy, and mistakenly paints Wladimir as a leader rather than a collator-of-already-ACKd-PRs
18:22 hearn i don't even see the issue,really. looking at the recent threads they all appear to be related to proposed protocol changes, libbitcoinconsensus, meetings, BIPs, etc
18:23 hearn jgarzik: see the issue? i replied pointing out an alternative solution to the problem you see and you already consider my reply to be somewhat offtopic?
18:23 CodeShark_ it comes down to tact Smiley
18:24 jgarzik Anybody, even a bot, could execute the Bitcoin Core leadership model. if (have_ACKS) merge else dont. Disagreeing with that philosophy is fine... But it is incorrect to paint or try and saddle Wladimir with "leader of Bitcoin Core" mantle, and then blame Wladimir for some perceived lack of action.
18:24 morcos Thank you jgarzik
18:24 hearn jgarzik: that's clearly not the case, and you know it. otherwise BIP101 would be merged already. i'd ack it, gavin would ack it, a few others would - done
18:24 jgarzik I did one of the Bitcoin Core releases
18:24 kanzure jgarzik: wladimir has on a number of occassions taken action by not merging something, but this can be perceived as inaction in some cases
18:24 jgarzik Wladimir is release manager and - god bless him - the main person that manages the morass of github PRs - doing our collective jobs for us
18:25 morcos hearn are you really unable to translate "(have)
18:25 jgarzik IMO Wladimir does too much PR'ing and the rest should pitch in
18:25 jgarzik and free him for real coding
18:25 wumpus right, list policy has nothing to do with bitcoin core's codebase. Even if I felt like it, I don't have the time to get involved with moderation there.
18:25 morcos sorry.. "(have_ACKS)" as short hand for "have ACKS and no significant NACKS"
18:25 CodeShark_ of the core committers, I'd say Wladimir is the least political
18:25 maaku kanzure: I believe warren got some pushback from LF regarding the mailing list split. not sure the details of that though
18:25 hearn morcos: that's not what jeff just said. with such a rule you suddenly need a definition of "significant" and the job cannot be done by a bot
18:26 hearn i mean come on. this is absurd.
18:26 wumpus "has ACKs and doesn't have the entire community in a fight"
18:26 jgarzik hearn, I understand -- and even agree in some cases -- how inaction translate into a decision or action.
18:26 kanzure maaku: i still think "direct all the excess mailing list traffic to cypherpunks" is a good plan, heh
18:26 jgarzik hearn, that has problems
18:26 hearn maintainership is not automatable. technical management is a skill
18:26 jgarzik and deserves criticism
18:26 jgarzik nonetheless, it's not wladimir's fault or responsibility
18:27 hearn i'm sorry but you cannot have a situation where there is only one implementation, where that implementation has one guy making the decisions, and then expect people to not engage in argument and debate about decisions being made or not made
18:27 jgarzik hearn, sure
18:27 maaku hearn: wumpus does not make all the decisions here
18:27 hearn look at how many block size threads there are. obviously a lot of people believe (rightly or wrongly) that by engaging in discussion they can affect the outcome
18:27 CodeShark_ see why we need a bitcoin political philosophy forum?
18:27 jgarzik hearn, and that has nothing to do with list admin
18:27 wumpus anyhow, please get a room for the meta-level discussion, it is off-topic here. This channel is about bitcoin core development and nothing more.
18:27 hearn if this is not wanted, he can end these threads by saying "I have made a decision, it isn't going to change, further discussion is pointless"
18:28 hearn people would take the hint
18:28 maaku hearn: that wouldn't end the discussion
18:28 hearn it would move it elsewhere
18:28 jgarzik hearn, list admins were going to be me, btcdrak, and a couple others, don't recall who. the idea is __not__ the same set of bitcoin.git commiters but mix it up.
18:28 CodeShark_ There are many unresolved issues that are not technical...and until they are resolved we'll continue suffering incursions
18:28 maaku hearn: yeah, it would eject wumpus as lead developer
18:28 hearn maaku: what would?
18:29 jgarzik sipa is lead developer Smiley
18:29 wumpus then take the hint, and take this away from here
18:29 jgarzik wumpus is lead merger Smiley
18:29 maaku hearn: him throwing his weight around and deciding controversial issues
18:30 jgarzik wumpus, oh good grief, don't escalate dude
18:30 CodeShark_ boo
18:31 jgarzik wumpus, just when things had quieted down
18:31 jgarzik wumpus, Please remove ban.
18:31 wumpus and stop this personal talk about me.
18:31 jgarzik wumpus, unavoidable
18:31 CodeShark_ Please remove ban, wumpus
18:35 zooko sigh
18:37 wumpus he's welcome back if he just starts talking about development, instead of questioning the project all the time
18:48 jcorgan well, if his goal was to disrupt the normal goings on in here and bring things to a halt, he succeeded

[bitkilo]

Bad move. A "Life Ban" seems way too much. Hopefully Mike will stay with bitcoin and join this forum in the next months.

That's a good idea, come join us Mike we will let you have your say

[The_Void]

"18:27 hearn i'm sorry but you cannot have a situation where there is only one implementation, where that implementation has one guy making the decisions, and then expect people to not engage in argument and debate about decisions being made or not made"

I know English very bad or he talks about himself? And also, I think banning people like Hearn is good. Only the 2 words "beneviolent dictator" are a good reason for lifetime ban in DECENTRALIZED ecosystem.