Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-11-13 📝 Original message:On Friday, November 13, ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-11-13
📝 Original message:On Friday, November 13, 2015 4:01:09 PM digitsu at gmail.com wrote:
> Forgive the frankness but I don't see why signaling your intent to support
> an upgrade to one side of a hard fork can be seen as a bad thing. If for
> nothing else doesn't this make for a smoother flag day? (Because once you
> signal your intention, it makes it hard to back out on the commitment.)
It isn't a commitment in any sense, nor does it make it smoother, because for
a hardfork to be successful, it is the *economy* that must switch entirely.
The miners are unimportant.
> If miners don't have any choice in hard forks, who does? Just the core
> devs?
Devs have even less of a choice in the matter. What is relevant is the
economy: who do people want to spend their bitcoins with? There is no
programmatic way to determine this, especially not in advance, so the best we
can do is a flag day that gets called off if there isn't clear consensus.
Luke
📝 Original message:On Friday, November 13, 2015 4:01:09 PM digitsu at gmail.com wrote:
> Forgive the frankness but I don't see why signaling your intent to support
> an upgrade to one side of a hard fork can be seen as a bad thing. If for
> nothing else doesn't this make for a smoother flag day? (Because once you
> signal your intention, it makes it hard to back out on the commitment.)
It isn't a commitment in any sense, nor does it make it smoother, because for
a hardfork to be successful, it is the *economy* that must switch entirely.
The miners are unimportant.
> If miners don't have any choice in hard forks, who does? Just the core
> devs?
Devs have even less of a choice in the matter. What is relevant is the
economy: who do people want to spend their bitcoins with? There is no
programmatic way to determine this, especially not in advance, so the best we
can do is a flag day that gets called off if there isn't clear consensus.
Luke