- Are you releasing a BIP for that proposal for review?
- If the reviewers all say NACK will you take on board their suggestions?
- On the idea of a non-consensus hard-fork at all, I think we can
assume you will get a row of NACKs. Can you explain your rationale
for going ahead anyway? The risks are well understood and enormous.
If Bitcoin runs out of capacity it will break and many of our users will leave. That is not an acceptable outcome for myself or the many other wallet, service and merchant developers who have worked for years to build an ecosystem around this protocol.
- How do you propose to deal with the extra risks that come from
non-consensus hard-forks? Hard-forks themselves are quite risky, but
non-consensus ones are extremely dangerous for consensus.
- If you're going it alone as it were, are you proposing that you will
personally maintain bitcoin-XT? Or do you have a plan to later hand
over maintenance to the bitcoin developers?
- Do you have contingency plans for what to do if the non-consensus
hard-fork goes wrong and $3B is lost as a result?
As you can probably tell I think a unilateral fork without wide-scale
consensus from the technical and business communities is a deeply
inadvisable.
Of the overall process, I think you can agree we should not be making
technical decisions with this level of complexity and consensus risk
with financial implications of this magnitude under duress of haste?
I can sincerely assure you everyone does want to scale bitcoin and
shares your long term objective on that