rich1.0npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wdhttps://nostr.ae/npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wdnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26 📝 Original message: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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150626/dd5e7ab9/attachment.html>