{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wt","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wt","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18\n📝 Original message:\u003eImpacts, yes, decider, no.  Multiple ACKs are required from developers \nwho will not act if the community will disagree with the change.\n\n \u003eThe users ultimately choose by deciding which software to download, \nand that dictates the range of choices available.\n\nThat is what I mean by a cultish reply.  Just saying the users \nultimately decide is not an adequate explanation of the situation. You \nare talking hard fork if someone doesn't like it.  If 10% of the users \ndon't like there is nothing they can do unless they want to operate an \naltcoin.  You are not going to resolve anything by repeating these types \nof replies that really have no applicability in the real world.  The \nperson who approves the pull request (no matter what the process is \nbeforehand) is effectively the decider.\n\nAlso, as pointed out, there is no real process in place.   Making \noffhand statements that \"multiple ACKs are required\" without describing \na real process just sends people down a rat hole like this block size \ndebate.  Providing these (non) answers instead of developing a real \nprocess is why there is so much contention now.\n\nRuss"}