📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19
📝 Original message:On 6/19/2015 6:43 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> No surprise, the position of Blockstream employees is that hard forks
> must never happen and that everyone's ordinary transactions should go
> via some new network that doesn't yet exist.
If my company were working on spiffy new ideas that required a hard fork
to implement, I'd be rather dismayed to see the blocksize hard fork
happen *before those ideas were ready*.
Because then I'd eventually have to convince people that those ideas
were worth a hard fork all on their own. It would be much easier to
convince people to roll them in with the already necessary blocksize
hard fork, if that event could be delayed.
As far as I know, Blockstream representatives have never said that
waiting for other changes to be ready is a reason to delay the blocksize
hard fork. So if this were the real reason, it would suggest they have
been hiding their true motives for making such a fuss about the
blocksize issue.
I've got no evidence at all to support thoughts like this... just the
paranoid mindset that seems to infect a person who gets involved in
bitcoin. But the question is every bit as valid as Adam's query into
your motives.
Tom Harding [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ms…pmwjy
2023-06-07 15:38:50
in reply to nevent1q…4w85
Author Public Key
npub1msef5qkfwz4t7qacwxz775wgdtlytph78g2g2z903x90874u263sypmwjyPublished at
2023-06-07 15:38:50Event JSON
{
"id": "51e3e5a1a53f028568489215150d7e6e5505aae12bedf43430bed341da5b47f2",
"pubkey": "dc329a02c970aabf03b87185ef51c86afe4586fe3a148508af898af3fabc56a3",
"created_at": 1686152330,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"48e81df3a73e441acd6c6e5c3151759bce9454a93871ca63dce7257540670bc0",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"796d6e2a235ddad1d67d6f3805ee36266936609c7bef43b88c5e719ca378e96d",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19\n📝 Original message:On 6/19/2015 6:43 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:\n\u003e No surprise, the position of Blockstream employees is that hard forks\n\u003e must never happen and that everyone's ordinary transactions should go\n\u003e via some new network that doesn't yet exist.\n\nIf my company were working on spiffy new ideas that required a hard fork\nto implement, I'd be rather dismayed to see the blocksize hard fork\nhappen *before those ideas were ready*.\n\nBecause then I'd eventually have to convince people that those ideas\nwere worth a hard fork all on their own. It would be much easier to\nconvince people to roll them in with the already necessary blocksize\nhard fork, if that event could be delayed.\n\nAs far as I know, Blockstream representatives have never said that\nwaiting for other changes to be ready is a reason to delay the blocksize\nhard fork. So if this were the real reason, it would suggest they have\nbeen hiding their true motives for making such a fuss about the\nblocksize issue.\n\nI've got no evidence at all to support thoughts like this... just the\nparanoid mindset that seems to infect a person who gets involved in\nbitcoin. But the question is every bit as valid as Adam's query into\nyour motives.",
"sig": "585320d6143482d0ad7bcea024810857692fe0f1627213724243c59dd9a784296c4ee6e4c4e9d9e794bf7227adb0987407b6661783f5fd9243a9be492298cf64"
}