{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-09-28\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e 1) Drop the \"everyone must agree to make changes\" idea that people here\n\u003e like to peddle, and do it loudly, so everyone in the community is correctly\n\u003e informed\n\u003e\n\nThere never was a rule that soft-forks require total consensus.  It is\ndesirable but not mandatory.\n\nA majority of miners can inherently implement a soft fork against the\nwishes of the rest of the users.\n\nMerchant/exchange/user checkpointing is the defense and therefore is a\nperfectly valid response to miners taking such an action.  If a soft fork\nis opposed by a large section of the users, then threatening (and\nimplementing) a checkpoint is the correct response.\n\nNo group can force through a hard fork, it inherently requires buy-in from\na large portion of the userbase.  That is where the \"total consensus\"\nrequirement comes from.  Naturally, absolute total consensus isn't actually\nrequired but you do need very large consensus and also consensus across the\nvarious sub-groups.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150928/0a0f7108/attachment.html\u003e"}