{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-07-22\n📝 Original message:Hello all,\n\nI'd like to talk a bit about my view on the relation between the Bitcoin\nCore project, and the consensus rules of Bitcoin.\n\nI believe it is the responsibility of the maintainers/developers of Bitcoin\nCore to create software which helps guarantee the security and operation of\nthe Bitcoin network.\n\nIn addition to normal software maintenance, bug fixes and performance\nimprovements, this includes DoS protection mechanism deemed necessary to\nkeep the network operational. Sometimes, such (per-node configurable)\npolicies have had economic impact, for example the dust rule.\n\nThis also includes participating in discussions about consensus changes,\nbut not the responsibility to decide on them - only to implement them when\nagreed upon. It would be irresponsible and dangerous to the network and\nthus the users of the software to risk forks, or to take a leading role in\npushing dramatic changes. Bitcoin Core developers obviously have the\nability to make any changes to the codebase or its releases, but it is\nstill up to the community to choose to run that code.\n\nSome people have called the prospect of limited block space and the\ndevelopment of a fee market a change in policy compared to the past. I\nrespectfully disagree with that. Bitcoin Core is not running the Bitcoin\neconomy, and its developers have no authority to set its rules. Change in\neconomics is always happening, and should be expected. Worse, intervening\nin consensus changes would make the ecosystem more dependent on the group\ntaking that decision, not less.\n\nSo to point out what I consider obvious: if Bitcoin requires central\ncontrol over its rules by a group of developers, it is completely\nuninteresting to me. Consensus changes should be done using consensus, and\nthe default in case of controversy is no change.\n\n===\n\nMy personal opinion is that we - as a community - should indeed let a fee\nmarket develop, and rather sooner than later, and that \"kicking the can\ndown the road\" is an incredibly dangerous precedent: if we are willing to\ngo through the risk of a hard fork because of a fear of change of\neconomics, then I believe that community is not ready to deal with change\nat all. And some change is inevitable, at any block size. Again, this does\nnot mean the block size needs to be fixed forever, but its intent should be\ngrowing with the evolution of technology, not a panic reaction because a\nfear of change.\n\nBut I am not in any position to force this view. I only hope that people\ndon't think a fear of economic change is reason to give up consensus.\n\n-- \nPieter\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150722/0a8c7519/attachment.html\u003e"}