jtoomim 19:26:16 UTC: "my plan for segwit was to pull it from core once it's done"

Seems like jtoomim and classic has a terrific plan. Judge for yourself: source

adam3us 19:25:47 UTC jtoomim: it is not for me it is for bitcoin. every one agrees seg-wit is needed functionality, even you.

adam3us 19:26:09 UTC jtoomim: you are making a fork of a repo with 50 active developers

jtoomim 19:26:16 UTC my plan for segwit was to pull it from core once it's done

adam3us 19:26:24 UTC jtoomim: some of those developers will be unlikely to help you, but some may.

adam3us 19:26:33 UTC jtoomim: it is not that simple because

jtoomim 19:26:39 UTC i can rebase our changes onto that 50 active developer repo

adam3us 19:26:57 UTC jtoomim: you are trying to use up a release slot that does a hard-fork without doing the needed work at the hard-fork stage

bitstein 19:26:57 UTC has joined the channel

sardokan 19:27:22 UTC has joined the channel

adam3us 19:27:27 UTC bitcoin developers propose this: 1) 2MB soft-fork; 2) IBLT/weak-blocks; 3) hard-fork to use space created by 2.

jtoomim 19:27:31 UTC adam3us: I've got other things to do, i'm not going to debate you. If you want something in classic, get your team to submit a PR, same as everyone else.

jtoomim 19:27:32 UTC bye

adam3us 19:27:49 UTC jtoomim: i think this is a very reasonable request that you collaborate with devs.

adam3us 19:28:04 UTC if you are too busy then dont maintain classic. if you are maintaining classic do the work.

adam3us 19:28:40 UTC jtoomim: its not a debate. i am explaining the dependency and sequence so you can talk with devs to figure out how to fit it into your differenr release schedule.

adam3us 19:28:59 UTC jtoomim: kind of odd if the lead/only maintainer of classic has to ask devs from core to do any complex work or it wont happen, no?

shimony 19:30:11 UTC has joined the channel

jsfsn 19:30:15 UTC This log should probably be made more public

jcorgan 19:31:11 UTC I've said this before--they need Core to succeed so they can draft off its developer community's skillset, but for Core to be successful, Core doesn't need them at all.

cdelargy 19:34:16 UTC http://bit.ly/1VlhCB5 ¯_(ツ)_/¯

taariqlewis 19:35:27 UTC adam3us: This is not a technical issue. It’s a marketing issue.

taariqlewis 19:35:38 UTC Bitcoin Classic is doing a simply better job at marketing than Core.

taariqlewis 19:35:47 UTC And that momentum is what’s driving interest.

stark 19:35:50 UTC taariqlewis: we need your help!

adam3us 19:35:55 UTC was my questioin to jtoomim unreasonable? not sure i get it fork code but no expertise to maintain it?

kanzure 19:36:00 UTC nah, i would say they are doing a better job at communication, not necessarily marketing

taariqlewis 19:36:18 UTC Marketing is a fancy way of saying “communication"

stark 19:36:22 UTC yeah, exactly

kanzure 19:36:23 UTC well, okay

adam3us 19:36:26 UTC taariqlewis: indeed. however no one has skills or resources to do anything about it

taariqlewis 19:36:33 UTC I disagree Adam.

kanzure 19:36:44 UTC this is why i want to use djat

kanzure 19:36:50 UTC he has offered these sorts of skills

taariqlewis 19:36:58 UTC The Bitcoin Classic team doesn’t have a marketing budget or a PR agency.

adam3us 19:37:03 UTC i think people will just have to start doing things - there is no central entity to hire them

taariqlewis 19:37:08 UTC Yup.

taariqlewis 19:37:10 UTC Agreed.

taariqlewis 19:37:27 UTC This will come down to a matter of internal motivation and willpower

adam3us 19:37:34 UTC taariqlewis: unsure. i mean there are a number of companies involved with presumably PR people on staff. but maybe

stark 19:38:07 UTC Core's communication has been terrible

adam3us 19:38:08 UTC taariqlewis: many developers find it distressing and go back to writing code. probably want classic has is a stronger ratio of lobbyist to coder

Submitted January 25, 2016 at 09:35PM by viajero_loco http://bit.ly/1RJ714Z