rich1.0npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcuhttps://nostr.ae/npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcunjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2021-03-06 📝 Original message:I don't think anyone is proposing anything to "prevent" other people from doing anything they wish. My understanding of the goal of this proposal, itself, was to keep the community together by proposing a solution that was palatable to all. My point was that I'm not sure that this proposal achieves its own goal, and that there may be solutions which are even more likely to keep the community of nodes together. Matt On 3/6/21 15:23, David A. Harding wrote: > On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 01:11:01PM -0500, Matt Corallo wrote: >> I'm really unsure that three months is a short enough time window that there >> wouldn't be a material effort to split the network with divergent consensus >> rules. > > I oppose designing activation mechanisms with the goal of preventing > other people from effectively exercising self determination over what > consensus rules their nodes enforce. > > Three months was chosen because it's long enough to give miners a > reasonable enough amount of time to activate taproot but it's also short > enough that it doesn't delay any of the existing proposals with roughly > one-year timelines. As such, I think it has the potential to gain > acceptance from multiple current factions (even if it doesn't ever gain > their full approval), allowing us to move forward with rough social > consensus and to gain useful information from the attempt that can > inform future decisions. > > -Dave >