< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #21254: test: Avoid connecting to real network when running tests (master...2102-testNoTelemetry) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21254
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #21255: contrib: run test-symbol-check for RISC-V (master...riscv_test_symbol_check) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21255
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] theStack closed pull request #21250: build: make HAVE_O_CLOEXEC available outside LevelDB (bugfix) (master...2021-02-build-pass-have_o_cloexec) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21250
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] theStack reopened pull request #21250: build: make HAVE_O_CLOEXEC available outside LevelDB (bugfix) (master...2021-02-build-pass-have_o_cloexec) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21250
< michaelfolkson>
achow101: The latest one was getting quite abusive towards to wumpus (Apologies on behalf of humanity for that wumpus)
< michaelfolkson>
I wonder if when closing them a drafted 1 or 2 line statement should be added explaining why they are being closed without review
< michaelfolkson>
Something explaining legal uncertainty, many others opening PRs to do exact same thing and not wanting to take up any more reviewer time
< michaelfolkson>
That's not to excuse angry comments but may calm them down a touch
< michaelfolkson>
"Thank you for your pull request to Bitcoin Core. We have received many similar pull requests to add a link to the white paper but due to legal uncertainty and in the interests of not taking up any more of reviewers' time we will be instantly closing any such pull requests."
< * michaelfolkson>
shrugs
< luke-jr>
michaelfolkson: doesn't seem to be any basis for legal uncertainty if it's just a link, especially to bitcoin.org where Satoshi himself published it
< phantomcircuit>
luke-jr, it's something to fight about and there's no point in fighting so whatever
< michaelfolkson>
But if bitcoin.org is superior from a legal uncertainty perspective maybe we should add that? I'm not entirely sure what is going on behind the scenes with CSW nonsense and I'm certainly no legal expert
< luke-jr>
michaelfolkson: shrug. I don't see any harm in a link to bitcoin.org, but it's also not worth fighting about if others disagree.
< luke-jr>
the CSW nonsense is pretty irrelevant and unrelated IMO
< michaelfolkson>
I don't think Luke is a fan of the whitepaper being encoded in a "m of n multisig Tx with 947 outputs" :)
< jb55>
who needs s3...
< luke-jr>
michaelfolkson: indeed, that's strictly abusive of Bitcoin and harms the entire network permanently.
< michaelfolkson>
Regardless if there is no legal uncertainty with the bitcoin.org link we should probably just link to that. Or respond with a drafted statement to closed PRs to calm the anger
< michaelfolkson>
People seem to be getting very upset
< sipa>
can we just drop this stupid whitepaper nonsense?
< sipa>
it's everywhere on the internet
< sipa>
this is just an enormous waste of time
< michaelfolkson>
We can obviously drop it here. But people who aren't here keep opening PRs and then responding angrily when they are closed
< sipa>
i'm sure they'll get bored
< phantomcircuit>
michaelfolkson, those people are not your friends