{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1ac86vemj7ce5z8jyxt39rna3tvwql6xd30ha3vxcd6esysp23d9qrlswfj","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1ac86vemj7ce5z8jyxt39rna3tvwql6xd30ha3vxcd6esysp23d9qrlswfj","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-14\n📝 Original message:Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Which is why there will soon be a fork that does it.\n\nI understand why you would be keen to scale bitcoin, everyone here is.\n\nBut as you seem to be saying that you will do a unilateral hard-fork,\nand fork the code-base simultaneously, probably a number of people\nhave questions, so I'll start with some:\n\n( I noticed some of your initial thoughts are online here\nhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0 or the full podcast\nhttps://epicenterbitcoin.com/podcast/082/ )\n\n- Are you releasing a BIP for that proposal for review?\n\n- If the reviewers all say NACK will you take on board their suggestions?\n\n- On the idea of a non-consensus hard-fork at all, I think we can\nassume you will get a row of NACKs.  Can you explain your rationale\nfor going ahead anyway?  The risks are well understood and enormous.\n\n- How do you propose to deal with the extra risks that come from\nnon-consensus hard-forks?  Hard-forks themselves are quite risky, but\nnon-consensus ones are extremely dangerous for consensus.\n\n- If you're going it alone as it were, are you proposing that you will\npersonally maintain bitcoin-XT?  Or do you have a plan to later hand\nover maintenance to the bitcoin developers?\n\n- Do you have contingency plans for what to do if the non-consensus\nhard-fork goes wrong and $3B is lost as a result?\n\n\nAs you can probably tell I think a unilateral fork without wide-scale\nconsensus from the technical and business communities is a deeply\ninadvisable.  While apparently some companies have expressed interest\nin increased scale, I can only assume they do no yet understand the\nrisks.  I suggest before they would actually go ahead that they seek\nindependent advice.\n\nOf the overall process, I think you can agree we should not be making\ntechnical decisions with this level of complexity and consensus risk\nwith financial implications of this magnitude under duress of haste?\nThis seems otherwise a little like the moral hazard of the 2008\nfinancial collapse that Satoshi put the quote in the genesis block\nabout.\n\nI think its best that we progress as Jeff Garzik has done to have\nengineering discussions centre around BIPs, running code for review,\nsimulation and careful analysis.\n\nI understand this has been going on for a long time, and some people\nare frustrated with the rate of progress, but making hasty,\ncontentious or unilateral actions in this space is courting disaster.\n\nPlease use your considerable skills to, along with the rest of the\ncommunity, work on this problem collaboratively.\n\nI can sincerely assure you everyone does want to scale bitcoin and\nshares your long term objective on that.\n\nAdam"}