{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1kkr20dcfa7a27uqrlkryqwxangtngc9nmx9cdlpyp3yvq37s8wsqz7fx4e","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1kkr20dcfa7a27uqrlkryqwxangtngc9nmx9cdlpyp3yvq37s8wsqz7fx4e","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05\n📝 Original message:For soft forks, consensus is required. In fact, we (today) have miners who\nindividually choose to mine blocks that are completely empty, with no known\ninput from (or communication with) the outside world. This is a consensus\nprocess. Users can switch back and forth all they like, and this only\nhappens when there is unanimous miner-developer consensus. Most of the time\nthey don't even know, that they are under consensus.\n\nIt is only \"controversial hard forks\" which DON'T require wide agreement\nand developer endorsements. Hear me out.\n\nThis is because, with zero dev-agreement, we have two benefits: first,\nthere are tremendous security issues which can be fixed by trying more than\none hard fork at once (these fixes can prevent loss of funds), and, second,\nbecause each fork is equally Acked and Nacked (a Schrodinger's Ack, if you\nwill), they will have equal standing, and therefore users will be equally\nindifferent to both forks and they will both live for a long time (and\nusers will be able to pick the fork that best fits them, empowering the\nuser).\n\nPeople have overlooked how simple this issue is because of the political\nclimate. We need a climate change, pardon the pun.\n\nOn Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Monday 5. October 2015 18.04.48 Gregory Maxwell wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Unsuccessfully.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e I think rather successfully.\n\u003e\n\u003e Arguing that BIP66 rollout was a full success is in the same park of\n\u003e \"successful\" ?\n\u003e Where for weeks people were told not to trust the longest chain until it\n\u003e was\n\u003e 30 blocks.\n\u003e Lets put that in perspective. The main functionality of Bitcoin\n\u003e Frankly, if that fiasco happened in a company, people would get fired for\n\u003e gross misconduct.\n\u003e\n\u003e Bottom line is that there is a horrible track record of doing soft forks in\n\u003e the past, there are some really good technical reasons why this should not\n\u003e happen again.\n\u003e\n\u003e And the defence against this argument is to do character assassination\n\u003e because\n\u003e you think he has ulterior motives?  Like you say in this part;\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e That Mike himself continues to misexplain\n\u003e \u003e things is not surprising since he has all but outright said that his\n\u003e \u003e motivation here is to disrupt Bitcoin in order to try to force his\n\u003e \u003e blocksize hardfork on people.\n\u003e\n\u003e \"all but outright said\" is still not said. Is still just a suspicion you\n\u003e have.\n\u003e And you are accusing a man of something he didn't do.\n\u003e That’s just not right.\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e The point is that Bitcoin Core claims to have a consensus mechanism and\n\u003e \u003e \u003e sticks to \"no change\" on not reaching a consensus. And that rule is the\n\u003e \u003e \u003e reason why bigger blocks were blocked for years.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e You're repeating Mike's claims there-- not anyone elses. Take your\n\u003e \u003e complaint up with him-- not the list.\n\u003e\n\u003e There is no complaint. Why do you think there is?\n\u003e Are you claiming that not reaching consensus is NOT the reason that bigger\n\u003e blocks are not in Bitcoin Core?\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Reaching consensus is an admirable goal. But its exactly that, a goal.\n\u003e And anyone that is a perfectionist will know that in the real world goals\n\u003e are\n\u003e often not reached. That doesn't make them less useful. That makes them\n\u003e goals.\n\u003e This specific goal is in conflict of building a good product and a well\n\u003e functioning community.\n\u003e\n\u003e A good product and a well functioning community needs rules and needs\n\u003e timely\n\u003e decisions and conflict resolution.\n\u003e It does not need muting of valuable voices, it does not need character\n\u003e assassinations and it really doesn't need egos.\n\u003e\n\u003e I suggest reading this book;\n\u003e http://www.artofcommunityonline.org/\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151005/ff7bea8c/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}