Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks

From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail•com>
To: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris•com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:56:50 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAA33663-B688-4D53-8BED-85B4E67EFA0A@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+w+GKTfBNsQm0X27+QeMmLvJXuX0H=8+ij_GU6mkGnWn-poZA@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1392 bytes --]

> On Jul 22, 2015, at 2:43 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Pieter,
> 
> I think a core area of disagreement is this:
> Bitcoin Core is not running the Bitcoin economy, and its developers have no authority to set its rules.
> 
> In fact Bitcoin Core is running the Bitcoin economy, and its developers do have the authority to set its rules. This is enforced by the reality of ~100% market share and limited github commit access.
> 
> You may not like this situation, but it is what it is. By refusing to make a release with different rules, people who disagree are faced with only two options:
> 
> 1. Swallow it even if they hate it
> 2. Fork the project and fork the block chain with it (XT)
> 
> There are no alternatives. People who object to (2) are inherently suggesting (1) is the only acceptable path, which not surprisingly, makes a lot of people very angry.

It would be truly awesome to be able to give people more choice on consensus rules. Unfortunately, cryptoledgers do not fork gracefully (yet). Until we’re able to merge blockchain forks like we’re able to merge git repo forks, the safest option is no fork.

> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2486 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 842 bytes --]