{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-27\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e That moves us away from a pure trustless system built upon a small\n\u003e democratic foundation (as something of a necessary evil in an imperfect\n\u003e world where humans run our computers and use our system) and toward a\n\u003e \"democratic system\".\n\u003e\n\u003e You don't have to agree, but I hope you can understand the point I'm\n\u003e making :-)\n\n\nYep, your point is well made.\n\nI don't have much more to say about this proposal specifically, but I think\nthis whole question of what changes are OK and what would be a violation of\nthe social contract will get discussed endlessly over the coming years. Put\nanother way, what do Bitcoin's users expect and want - a system that\nevolves or a system that remains exactly as they found it? There will be\ngood arguments on both sides, and the answer will probably be different on\na case by case basis. But personally I'm skeptical of any argument that\nargues against change for its own sake. It has to be an argument rooted in\na careful analysis of costs and benefits.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140427/acb15bfc/attachment.html\u003e"}