{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1assqju94qjdpunps2yck2vtzfhnme5pclv0aantfajkjs5w2057quzu5p3","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1assqju94qjdpunps2yck2vtzfhnme5pclv0aantfajkjs5w2057quzu5p3","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23\n📝 Original message:\u003e So to point out what I consider obvious: if Bitcoin requires central\n\u003e control over its rules by a group of developers, it is completely\n\u003e uninteresting to me. Consensus changes should be done using consensus, and\n\u003e the default in case of controversy is no change.\n\nThis is a really interesting thread. Since we're no longer talking\nabout a consensus of the core committers, which would be central\ncontrol, but instead something broader, could you say a bit more about\nwhat this consensus might look like, and how we'll know if we've got\none?\n\nIn plain language \"no controversy\" sounds like very high bar for a\ndiverse community like this; Even bringing in P2SH kicked up a fair\nbit of fur and feathers. Do you have a definition in mind where it\nisn't an _impossibly_ high one?\n\n-- \nEdmund Edgar\nFounder, Social Minds Inc (KK)\nTwitter: @edmundedgar\nLinked In: edmundedgar\nSkype: edmundedgar\nhttp://www.socialminds.jp\n\nReality Keys\n@realitykeys\nsupport at realitykeys.com\nhttps://www.realitykeys.com"}