rich1.0npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nhttps://nostr.ae/npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-11-13 📝 Original message:On Friday, November 13, 2015 4:01:09 PM digitsu at gmail.com wrote: > Forgive the frankness but I don't see why signaling your intent to support > an upgrade to one side of a hard fork can be seen as a bad thing. If for > nothing else doesn't this make for a smoother flag day? (Because once you > signal your intention, it makes it hard to back out on the commitment.) It isn't a commitment in any sense, nor does it make it smoother, because for a hardfork to be successful, it is the *economy* that must switch entirely. The miners are unimportant. > If miners don't have any choice in hard forks, who does? Just the core > devs? Devs have even less of a choice in the matter. What is relevant is the economy: who do people want to spend their bitcoins with? There is no programmatic way to determine this, especially not in advance, so the best we can do is a flag day that gets called off if there isn't clear consensus. Luke