By the way, on that basis it might be a good idea to introduce an extra status called "deployed" to indicate when a hard fork has reached a super-majority and is being used by the economy in practice, but not the whole economy. On 10/03/16 16:28, Mustafa Al-Bassam wrote: > > > On 10/03/16 15:59, Jorge Timón wrote: >> >> >> On Mar 10, 2016 16:51, "Mustafa Al-Bassam via bitcoin-dev" >> wrote: >> >> > I think in general this sounds like a good definition for a hard-fork >> > becoming active. But I can envision a situation where someone will try >> > to be annoying about it and point to one instance of one buyer and one >> > seller using the blockchain to buy and sell from each other, or set >> one up. >> >> And all the attacker will achieve is preventing a field on a text >> file on github from moving from "active" to "final". >> Seems pretty stupid. Why would an attacker care so much about this? >> Is there any way the attacker can make gains or harm bitcoin with >> this attack? >> > It's extremely naive to think that just because you can't think of an > incentive for a reason for an attack to do this, an attacker will > never to do this. There are many people that would be willing to spend > some time to cause some trouble for the enjoyment of it, if the attack > is free to execute. > > The fact that it takes very little time and effort to prevent a BIP > from reaching final status, means that in an base of millions of users > it's guaranteed that some disgruntled or bored person out there will > attack it, even if it's for the lulz. > > To reasonably expect that any hark fork - including an uncontroversial > one - will be adapted by every single person in a ecosystem of > millions of people, is wishful thinking and the BIP may as well say > "hard fork BIPs shall never reach final status."