{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e 1) ignores him, which is against the established criteria that all technical\n\u003e objections coming from anyone must be addressed until that person agrees, so\n\u003e that a change can be uncontroversial. If the group moves forward with the\n\u003e change, then the \"uncontroversial\" criteria is violated and then credibility\n\u003e is lost. So a new governance model would be required for which the change is\n\u003e within the established rules.\n\u003e\n\u003e 2) respond to his technical objections one after the other, on never ending\n\u003e threads, bringing the project to a standstill.\n\nI don't agree-- I think you've made the mistake of just accepting the\nparticular framing that Mike has provide; one that (no shock) only\nsupports his conclusions.\n\nI am aware of no instance where an active contributor to core has made\nthe claim that no change to consensus can happen without 100% support\n(and doubly so, 100% including people who are expressly trying to\ndisrupt the project by posing opposition which, as you note, is\nlargely unrelated to the merits of the proposals). Mike has lead you\nto believe people have claimed this, but no one has-- it's a view\nwhich is simple, clear, and completely not reflecting reality. Don't\nfall for strawman arguments.\n\nIn this situation it is also a particularly strong apples/oranges comparison:\n\nSoft forks can happen at any time at the whim of miners-- no\ntechnology which we are aware of (beyond the technology of\ncentralization) is able to prevent them-- they are not necessarily\neven detectable; on this basis they are categorically different than\nhard forks.\n\nMoreover, the space of soft-forks the contributors to Bitcoin Core\nwould ever consider is a tiny space of all possible soft-forks, and\nare ones which cannot be rationally understood to meaningfully\nundermine the properties provided by the rules enforced within the\nsoftware; again making them different from some other proposals and of\na lesser concern.\n\nFinally, the behavior of the technology arising from the inherent\ncompatibility, radically lowers (in most of our experience and\nopinion) the cost of deployment; again-- making them different. They\nprevent a industry wide flag day, and tight release synchronization\nwhich is harmful to decentralization promoting software diversity.\n\nAs I think I commented in one of my messages-- I respond to the\ntechnical arguments not because I believe they are earnestly\nmotivated, but because they provide an avenue for learning for myself\nand others. Even someone trying to disrupt the process and nothing\nelse can help us learn by acting as an adversary that causes us to\nextend our minds and understanding. The process for CLTV has been\nongoing for something like a year and a half and has little risk of\nbeing substantially disrupted at this point."}