{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0n","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0n","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-11-13\n📝 Original message:On Friday, November 13, 2015 4:01:09 PM digitsu at gmail.com wrote:\n\u003e Forgive the frankness but I don't see why signaling your intent to support\n\u003e an upgrade to one side of a hard fork can be seen as a bad thing.  If for\n\u003e nothing else doesn't this make for a smoother flag day? (Because once you\n\u003e signal your intention, it makes it hard to back out on the commitment.)\n\nIt isn't a commitment in any sense, nor does it make it smoother, because for \na hardfork to be successful, it is the *economy* that must switch entirely. \nThe miners are unimportant.\n\n\u003e If miners don't have any choice in hard forks, who does? Just the core\n\u003e devs? \n\nDevs have even less of a choice in the matter. What is relevant is the \neconomy: who do people want to spend their bitcoins with? There is no \nprogrammatic way to determine this, especially not in advance, so the best we \ncan do is a flag day that gets called off if there isn't clear consensus.\n\nLuke"}