From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F5E2481 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:40:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f179.google.com (mail-ig0-f179.google.com [209.85.213.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9059FE9 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:40:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igr7 with SMTP id 7so84821517igr.0 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 21:40:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=G7BaPFf+1r+YIWMWpyCZRl7KW6vsmyDtnlAcFgQFCZA=; b=Y1LB0IaAFkHTnLwfAueB5xXkpQuzpxW+JpixUld0WhZwmIaLE0WUayDgesM+MKCirL DsHxG9OiSbTDf5UOq3v73jLxCf1UIafA9+h97+vz/IA3ZPwjHDCz+nMcnSH/yLK/ynnh FrokAYyOEHoZ8yCyyFmgaqiB89gaBggVfNh75UR88jl4X9IgMCED50Hrh3SOVGPRIXLE FdRcmMC3D+2DBXA2MVMyFsG8CGbP1K4EVN67AnQAKuWgRjlLVyXcQbHchdTJZ8EyUAXw tl0ntO3HM1+iAZa4wzNFgopMuGSmnTdtqdd5+DzZOVXpPJhamCZ4tmCALBMkxRsgkSDh fwfA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.161.206 with SMTP id k197mr9574482ioe.100.1437626430038; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 21:40:30 -0700 (PDT) Sender: edmund.edgar@gmail.com Received: by 10.36.66.9 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 21:40:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:40:29 +0900 X-Google-Sender-Auth: jwW7YtYYpfLcdxyGo3iJNFT17Yg Message-ID: From: Edmund Edgar To: Pieter Wuille , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:40:31 -0000 > So to point out what I consider obvious: if Bitcoin requires central > control over its rules by a group of developers, it is completely > uninteresting to me. Consensus changes should be done using consensus, and > the default in case of controversy is no change. This is a really interesting thread. Since we're no longer talking about a consensus of the core committers, which would be central control, but instead something broader, could you say a bit more about what this consensus might look like, and how we'll know if we've got one? In plain language "no controversy" sounds like very high bar for a diverse community like this; Even bringing in P2SH kicked up a fair bit of fur and feathers. Do you have a definition in mind where it isn't an _impossibly_ high one? -- Edmund Edgar Founder, Social Minds Inc (KK) Twitter: @edmundedgar Linked In: edmundedgar Skype: edmundedgar http://www.socialminds.jp Reality Keys @realitykeys support@realitykeys.com https://www.realitykeys.com