📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05
📝 Original message:> On Oct 5, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Monday 5. October 2015 20.56.34 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> (In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator
>> contributors that disagree).
>
> Regular contributor?
>
> Please explain how for a fork in the protocol should you only listen to
> regular Bitcoin Core contributors?
Furthermore, Bitcoin is significantly more than a "software project": it sits at a unique intersection of computer science, economics, physics, law and more. While I agree that minor bug-fixes and code-maintenance-type issues should be dealt with quietly by developers, decisions regarding Bitcoin’s governance and its evolution should be shaped by an interdisciplinary group of stakeholders from across the community. The hard- vs soft-fork debate is not just a code maintenance issue.
Once again, let’s use the current gridlock in Core to rally the growth of new forkwise-compatible implementations of the protocol. Gavin and Mike’s initiative with BIP101 and Bitcoin XT should be encouraged as one possible model for coming to consensus on hard-forking changes.
Best regards,
Peter
Peter R [ARCHIVE] /
npub1vx…lz2gn
2023-06-07 17:42:49
in reply to nevent1q…xl50
Author Public Key
npub1vxzlqg5f7ykqr3hheqxdcqe35q02a8rr2mez30sjaldhlvu4hsvsqlz2gnPublished at
2023-06-07 17:42:49Event JSON
{
"id": "7611e2dee13901ddc76544cd527eec9d99ff529216771007e7bdddb6b75762a5",
"pubkey": "6185f02289f12c01c6f7c80cdc0331a01eae9c6356f228be12efdb7fb395bc19",
"created_at": 1686159769,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8b171b0a181c0ea41f6054eb15f1f19559c90fd9ce9e5f5fc159720aea23cfd9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"0950558106c80f9945ef4231eaa4dbce1a87f3f47e22e06476c8574a6cad3ca7",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"dcb947d818dbfd7cf0baf26c0d5eb606b5a32336c5483fb53e05146315833ca7"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05\n📝 Original message:\u003e On Oct 5, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Monday 5. October 2015 20.56.34 Gregory Maxwell wrote:\n\u003e\u003e (In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator\n\u003e\u003e contributors that disagree).\n\u003e \n\u003e Regular contributor?\n\u003e \n\u003e Please explain how for a fork in the protocol should you only listen to \n\u003e regular Bitcoin Core contributors?\n\nFurthermore, Bitcoin is significantly more than a \"software project\": it sits at a unique intersection of computer science, economics, physics, law and more. While I agree that minor bug-fixes and code-maintenance-type issues should be dealt with quietly by developers, decisions regarding Bitcoin’s governance and its evolution should be shaped by an interdisciplinary group of stakeholders from across the community. The hard- vs soft-fork debate is not just a code maintenance issue. \n\nOnce again, let’s use the current gridlock in Core to rally the growth of new forkwise-compatible implementations of the protocol. Gavin and Mike’s initiative with BIP101 and Bitcoin XT should be encouraged as one possible model for coming to consensus on hard-forking changes. \n\nBest regards,\nPeter",
"sig": "509e048651ccd0d4657f014f1027cc39aabb549d4fa05df56ac901e0ac4b251c32dedb183d4ef865688d51e5cdc177103668be1ebeed77e9e5b6be9b1c05e671"
}