rich1.0npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0uhttps://nostr.ae/npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0unjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26 📝 Original message:This is a hard fork. It is not about miners, at all. 2013 showed that when there is true consensus mining can be coordinated on the order of hours or days. This is about pushing through a coercive change to the decentralization tradeoffs of bitcoin without unanimous consent. On Jun 26, 2015 12:03 PM, "Tier Nolan" <tier.nolan at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Patrick Strateman < > patrick.strateman at gmail.com> wrote: > >> For a proposed hard fork to reach a level of consensus necessary to be >> safe requires that there be a clear and self evident course of action. >> > > Safety increases with more lead-in time. If the reference client was > updated so that the hard fork happened in two years, it would be pretty > safe. Miners would have time to update. > > If miners (or the community) objected, it is sort of like a game of > chicken. > > This is one of the problems with not making decisions in advance, the > resulting hard fork is inherently safer. > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150626/f4b14ff9/attachment.html>