rich1.0npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydhttps://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-04-27 📝 Original message:> > That moves us away from a pure trustless system built upon a small > democratic foundation (as something of a necessary evil in an imperfect > world where humans run our computers and use our system) and toward a > "democratic system". > > You don't have to agree, but I hope you can understand the point I'm > making :-) Yep, your point is well made. I don't have much more to say about this proposal specifically, but I think this whole question of what changes are OK and what would be a violation of the social contract will get discussed endlessly over the coming years. Put another way, what do Bitcoin's users expect and want - a system that evolves or a system that remains exactly as they found it? There will be good arguments on both sides, and the answer will probably be different on a case by case basis. But personally I'm skeptical of any argument that argues against change for its own sake. It has to be an argument rooted in a careful analysis of costs and benefits. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140427/acb15bfc/attachment.html>