From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dan@osc.co.cr>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C234A7F
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 15 Sep 2017 20:01:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.osc.co.cr (unknown [168.235.79.83])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28D5A113
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 15 Sep 2017 20:01:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.2.225] (miner1 [71.94.45.245])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: danda)
	by mail.osc.co.cr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46FE91F00D;
	Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
To: adam@cypherspace.org, Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
References: <9e212eae-08d5-d083-80d9-a8e29679fcdc@osc.co.cr>
	<SU02clg--S4TtIK4TZIytgdnHE8SzXBwSEb_FN5edtPAaojLwCEd6OTNkBUrDiH1FwHPuD4D5yByE7r4Fz_-CVzzU9KK0xvmDGlWNxTp3aU=@protonmail.com>
	<CALqxMTFEA2X0GJwF8rO=8twsgW=brrzScpDD=owiK9otocdjoA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dan Libby <dan@osc.co.cr>
Message-ID: <bb4015e7-f69f-d273-115e-c115ec2d8f0a@osc.co.cr>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:01:48 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTFEA2X0GJwF8rO=8twsgW=brrzScpDD=owiK9otocdjoA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=RDNS_NONE autolearn=disabled
	version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 20:05:13 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] hypothetical: Could soft-forks be prevented?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 20:01:50 -0000

On 09/15/2017 02:14 AM, Adam Back wrote:
> However most types of soft fork are opt-in...

my concern is that the community can be manipulated via political means.
 marketing, social media, payoffs, fud, etc, etc, etc.  And essentially
degrades to tyranny of the majority.


So if there is any way to make opt-in forks impractical/infeasible for
purpose of network wide consensus rule change, I'd love to hear it.