📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05
📝 Original message:On Monday, October 05, 2015 3:56:33 PM Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Some of the people on this mailing list are blindly discussing the
> technicalities of a soft/hard fork without realizing that is not Mike's
> main intention. At least I perceive (and maybe others too) something else
> is happening.
>
> Let me try to clarify: the discussion has nothing to do with technical
> arguments. I generally like more hard forks than soft forks (but I won't
> explain why because this is not a technical thread), but for CLTV this is
> quite irrelevant (but I won't explain why..), and I want CLTV to be
> deployed asap.
>
> Mike's intention is to criticize the informal governance model of Bitcoin
> Core development and he has strategically pushed the discussion to a
> dead-end where the group either:
>
> 1) ignores him, which is against the established criteria that all
> technical objections coming from anyone must be addressed until that person
> agrees, so that a change can be uncontroversial. If the group moves forward
> with the change, then the "uncontroversial" criteria is violated and then
> credibility is lost. So a new governance model would be required for which
> the change is within the established rules.
>
> 2) respond to his technical objections one after the other, on never ending
> threads, bringing the project to a standstill.
>
> As I don't want 2) to happen, then 1) must happen, which is what Mike
> wants. I have nothing for or against Mike personally. I just think Mike
> Hearn has won this battle. But having a more formal decision making process
> may not be too bad for Bitcoin, maybe it can actually be good.
This discussion is *necessarily* about soft/hard fork technicalities, as
there is no governance in Bitcoin beyond the *nature* of the consensus
protocol. The "established criteria" you mention is merely the nature of
hardforks. It is completely inapplicable and has never been the necessary
case for softforks, which can be enforced by merely a miner majority.
Luke
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 17:42:38
in reply to nevent1q…krch
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nPublished at
2023-06-07 17:42:38Event JSON
{
"id": "6673a47a736aaabe93969629016db74d863e43d7bbbaca4ae90a07425833b50f",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686159758,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8b171b0a181c0ea41f6054eb15f1f19559c90fd9ce9e5f5fc159720aea23cfd9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a43dd9f668d078eddc89b3e00eec4176f41881d3a5f7357962e9f6a5e4489305",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"238bb115101f2c05433c2b8aefc80ed5b4af9d3ff844748859d7a2298b116b49"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05\n📝 Original message:On Monday, October 05, 2015 3:56:33 PM Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev \nwrote:\n\u003e Some of the people on this mailing list are blindly discussing the\n\u003e technicalities of a soft/hard fork without realizing that is not Mike's\n\u003e main intention. At least I perceive (and maybe others too) something else\n\u003e is happening.\n\u003e \n\u003e Let me try to clarify: the discussion has nothing to do with technical\n\u003e arguments. I generally like more hard forks than soft forks (but I won't\n\u003e explain why because this is not a technical thread), but for CLTV this is\n\u003e quite irrelevant (but I won't explain why..), and I want CLTV to be\n\u003e deployed asap.\n\u003e \n\u003e Mike's intention is to criticize the informal governance model of Bitcoin\n\u003e Core development and he has strategically pushed the discussion to a\n\u003e dead-end where the group either:\n\u003e \n\u003e 1) ignores him, which is against the established criteria that all\n\u003e technical objections coming from anyone must be addressed until that person\n\u003e agrees, so that a change can be uncontroversial. If the group moves forward\n\u003e with the change, then the \"uncontroversial\" criteria is violated and then\n\u003e credibility is lost. So a new governance model would be required for which\n\u003e the change is within the established rules.\n\u003e \n\u003e 2) respond to his technical objections one after the other, on never ending\n\u003e threads, bringing the project to a standstill.\n\u003e \n\u003e As I don't want 2) to happen, then 1) must happen, which is what Mike\n\u003e wants. I have nothing for or against Mike personally. I just think Mike\n\u003e Hearn has won this battle. But having a more formal decision making process\n\u003e may not be too bad for Bitcoin, maybe it can actually be good.\n\nThis discussion is *necessarily* about soft/hard fork technicalities, as \nthere is no governance in Bitcoin beyond the *nature* of the consensus \nprotocol. The \"established criteria\" you mention is merely the nature of \nhardforks. It is completely inapplicable and has never been the necessary \ncase for softforks, which can be enforced by merely a miner majority.\n\nLuke",
"sig": "e6f139812f3b24ecf9366601594fea1f64e96cfdf473855eea16bbb5a2108dd4deb66252596339638610ca19ec6ea8c9e6ee788d3eff5e1d32710b137f45df03"
}