rich1.0npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58https://nostr.ae/npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-07-22 📝 Original message:I wouldn't go quite that far. The reality is somewhere in the middle, as Bryan Cheng noted in this thread: Quoting BC, > Upgrading to a version of Bitcoin Core that is incompatible with your ideals is in no way a forced choice, as you have stated in your email; forks, alternative clients, or staying on an older version are all valid choices. If the majority of the network chooses not to endorse a specific change, then the majority of the network will continue to operate just fine without it, and properly structured consensus rules will pull the minority along as well. The developers *propose* a new version, by publishing a new release. The individual network nodes choose to accept or reject that. So I respectfully disagree with "core devs don't control the network" and "core devs control the network" both. There are checks-and-balances that make the system work. Consensus is most strongly measured by user actions after software release. If the developers fail to reflect user consensus, the network will let us know. On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hi Pieter, > > I think a core area of disagreement is this: > >> Bitcoin Core is not running the Bitcoin economy, and its developers have >> no authority to set its rules. >> > In fact Bitcoin Core is running the Bitcoin economy, and its developers do > have the authority to set its rules. This is enforced by the reality of > ~100% market share and limited github commit access. > > You may not like this situation, but it is what it is. By refusing to make > a release with different rules, people who disagree are faced with only two > options: > > 1. Swallow it even if they hate it > 2. Fork the project and fork the block chain with it (XT) > > There are no alternatives. People who object to (2) are inherently > suggesting (1) is the only acceptable path, which not surprisingly, makes a > lot of people very angry. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150722/f4c37787/attachment-0001.html>