📅 Original date posted:2015-06-02
📝 Original message:Pindar,
yes and it's a good idea to separate the hard/soft fork upgrades. The point
> being here is that we're also establishing a process for the community to
> self-determine the way forward in a transparent and verifiable manner.
>
> What's not to like? :)
>
> I'll probably have some time on Sunday to help hack something up but I
> don't think this is that heavy a coding lift? What am I missing?
>
As Matt mentioned, many members of the bitcoin community would be hesitant
about giving miners this much power. It essentially lets them vote to
change the rules of the system. But miners are not the only part of this
ecosystem, and they are not the only ones affected by the choice of block
size limit, so they probably shouldn't be the only ones with a vote.
Instead, we vote with the software we run, and all upgrade.
So, while I think an idea like this has its merits, I would bet that it's
fairly unlikely to get enough support to be merged into bitcoin core.
Best,
Stephen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150602/12a7e17a/attachment.html>;
Stephen Morse [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ja…q0j2u
2023-06-07 15:36:32
in reply to nevent1q…e42f
Author Public Key
npub1ja0fa5k6j04r2h7jp33lvdy2kzpv5yj60ce4wvcca7fvxe99hw5qqq0j2uPublished at
2023-06-07 15:36:32Event JSON
{
"id": "b379d5a6f5248b5b2055ba73d58903f49c675b9ad4c2cb1746fe38d6440ef3e6",
"pubkey": "975e9ed2da93ea355fd20c63f6348ab082ca125a7e33573318ef92c364a5bba8",
"created_at": 1686152192,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3d1ec264de3f692858c8c6e2d21675624efe6b3d119ec3523f92a80da82b7c07",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"759810d36169be9c3e091b349564db8c101c62243bda268c6554a116a89b2d94",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"975e9ed2da93ea355fd20c63f6348ab082ca125a7e33573318ef92c364a5bba8"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-02\n📝 Original message:Pindar,\n\nyes and it's a good idea to separate the hard/soft fork upgrades. The point\n\u003e being here is that we're also establishing a process for the community to\n\u003e self-determine the way forward in a transparent and verifiable manner.\n\u003e\n\u003e What's not to like? :)\n\u003e\n\u003e I'll probably have some time on Sunday to help hack something up but I\n\u003e don't think this is that heavy a coding lift? What am I missing?\n\u003e\n\nAs Matt mentioned, many members of the bitcoin community would be hesitant\nabout giving miners this much power. It essentially lets them vote to\nchange the rules of the system. But miners are not the only part of this\necosystem, and they are not the only ones affected by the choice of block\nsize limit, so they probably shouldn't be the only ones with a vote.\nInstead, we vote with the software we run, and all upgrade.\n\nSo, while I think an idea like this has its merits, I would bet that it's\nfairly unlikely to get enough support to be merged into bitcoin core.\n\nBest,\nStephen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150602/12a7e17a/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "d94b255b1bf3dffc99973b7a994d774199af7aafe4bc45dfddcf6ead3287287789f76b7aeaaeaaad14af137126aa93e7b06f4bc226ceb41395c13eb3f605cb42"
}