Re: [Bitcoin-development] The difficulty of writing consensus critical code: the SIGHASH_SINGLE bug

[Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 897 bytes --]

>
> > Who benefits from not fixing bugs in Bitcoin?
>
> We can bring up politics if you want.


No, please don't. That question was rhetorical, not an invitation for you
to try and convince bystanders that anyone who disagrees with you is a
shadowy Agent Of Centralisation or an idiot. You use that tactic way too
much: it's obnoxious and you need to stop it.

Hard forks vs soft forks are *purely* about whether you drag along old
nodes in a quasi-broken state. They do not reduce total work needed by the
community one iota. Non-miners who wish to reject a soft fork can easily
run a node that does so, if they wanted to - the voting mechanism still
boils down to "which side of the fork do I accept in my economic activity".
It's certainly garbage to claim that the reason to want to avoid soft forks
is being an Evil Centralised Foundation:  this is about a set of
engineering tradeoffs only.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1322 bytes --]