{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Alex Morcos \u003cmorcos at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Let me take a pass at explaining how I see this.\n\u003e\n\u003e 1) Code changes to Bitcoin Core that don't change consensus:  Wladimir is\n\u003e the decider but he works under a process that is well understood by\n\u003e developers on the project in which he takes under reasonable consideration\n\u003e other technical opinions and prefers to have clear agreement among them.\n\u003e\n\nYes.\n\n2) Changes to the consensus rules: As others have said, this isn't anyone's\n\u003e decision for anyone else.\n\u003e\n\nYes.\n\n\n\u003e It's up to each individual user as to what code they run and what rules\n\u003e they enforce.  So then why is everyone so up in arms about what Mike and\n\u003e Gavin are proposing if everyone is free to decide for themselves?  I\n\u003e believe that each individual user should adhere to the principle that there\n\u003e should be no changes to the consensus rules unless there is near complete\n\u003e agreement among the entire community, users, developers, businesses miners\n\u003e etc. It is not necessary to define complete agreement exactly because every\n\u003e individual person decides for themselves.  I believe that this is what\n\u003e gives Bitcoin, or really any money, its value and what makes it work, that\n\u003e we all agree on exactly what it is.  So I believe that it is misleading and\n\u003e bad for Bitcoin to tell users and business that you can just choose without\n\u003e concern for everyone else which code you'll run and we'll see which one\n\u003e wins out.  No.  You should run the old consensus rules (on any codebase you\n\u003e want) until you believe that pretty much everyone has consented to a change\n\u003e in the rules.  It is your choice, but I think a lot of people that have\n\u003e spent time thinking about the philosophy of consensus systems believe that\n\u003e when the users of the system have this principle in mind, it's what will\n\u003e make the system work best.\n\u003e\n\nI don't think I agree with \"pretty much everybody\", because status-quo bias\nis a very powerful thing. Any change that disrupts the way they've been\ndoing things will generate significant resistance -- there will be 10 or\n20% of any population that will take a position of \"too busy to think about\nthis, everything seems to be working great, I don't like change, NO to any\nchange.\"\n\nFor example, I think some of the resistance for bigger blocks is coming\nfrom contributors who are worried they, personally, won't be able to keep\nup with a bigger blockchain. They might not be able to run full nodes from\ntheir home network connections (or might not be able to run a full node AND\nstream Game of Thrones), on their old raspberry pi machines.\n\nThe criteria for me is \"clear super-majority of the people and businesses\nwho are using Bitcoin the most,\" and I think that criteria is met.\n\n\n\n\u003e 3) Code changes to Core that do change consensus: I think that Wladimir,\n\u003e all the other committers besides Gavin, and almost all of the other\n\u003e developers on Core would defer to #2 above and wait for its outcome to be\n\u003e clear before considering such a code change.\n\u003e\n\nYes, that's the way it has mostly been working. But even before stepping\ndown as Lead I was starting to wonder if there are ANY successful open\nsource projects that didn't have either a Benevolent Dictator or some clear\nvoting process to resolve disputes that cannot be settled with \"rough\nconsensus.\"\n\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150618/cadd74c6/attachment.html\u003e"}