📅 Original date posted:2015-07-22
📝 Original message:>default in case of controversy is no change.
I think the result of this would probably be that no controversial
changes ever get implemented via this process so others will hard fork
the code and eventually make this process irrelevant. Since you need
close to 100% agreement the irrelevance would have to come as a step
function which will manifest itself in a rather disruptive manner.
The question is really is this hark-forking disruption worse than coming
up with some kind of process to handle controversial changes.
Russ
Milly Bitcoin [ARCHIVE] /
npub1rv…hc5wt
2023-06-07 15:42:49
in reply to nevent1q…eyng
Author Public Key
npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wtPublished at
2023-06-07 15:42:49Event JSON
{
"id": "4a5595f95b4f2a212f196204fab04cab524f4806c687ff10712c70a07870d2bd",
"pubkey": "1b29d94ee81e1ee0479f1db4bc4ac887407bd470a0d7060e76f8ab27fdd57e50",
"created_at": 1686152569,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"95a36d78d6bf18f4b8ede735f044f5cc9630ae9f0b1198d008835777ff84eede",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1c9b2ba4917755b4386c875220cf22fb2f424ab124391ea269ecfd9feed0f0e9",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"787ecd48da0d9610d322fb67c86ad23a5287d688559b2ff8ee546721fd990129"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-07-22\n📝 Original message:\u003edefault in case of controversy is no change.\n\nI think the result of this would probably be that no controversial \nchanges ever get implemented via this process so others will hard fork \nthe code and eventually make this process irrelevant. Since you need \nclose to 100% agreement the irrelevance would have to come as a step \nfunction which will manifest itself in a rather disruptive manner.\n\nThe question is really is this hark-forking disruption worse than coming \nup with some kind of process to handle controversial changes.\n\nRuss",
"sig": "7f861e0bb6a94f53f6743a48b83fd5e04938d5235006733c43551189609a331009b15c94864d1243de625b671b4051e62b5932debab290ce456ecefcdd2e304a"
}