rich1.0npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydhttps://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-09-28 📝 Original message:> > The rationale for soft vs hard-forks is well known, so I wont go over them. > The rationale of "backwards compatibility" is well known, yet wrong. I've gone over the arguments here and explained why the concept makes no sense: https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050c792e7 Eric - no, it's not sophisticated humour. I've been objecting to soft forks since this idea first appeared. There is no consensus. Now pick. Lose the requirement that everyone agree for consensus changes, and tell people you've done it. Change the spec. Or do nothing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150928/5dae3282/attachment.html>