Author: Gregory Maxwell 2013-02-12 15:49:43
Published on: 2013-02-12T15:49:43+00:00
In this email exchange, Raph Frank suggests that if made sufficiently general, older clients could support any extension of the rules. However, the recipient of the email clarifies that BIP-34 is not gauging consensus, but rather making sure that changes are safe to enforce. Bitcoin is not a democracy and intentionally uses the consensus mechanism only for the ordering of transactions. This protects users by making most of the system largely nonvolatile "constitutional" rules instead of being controlled by popular whim. Even if voting were a just way of making decisions, mining is not a particularly just way of voting as hashpower isn't people, and currently, the authority to control the majority of the hashpower is vested in only a few individuals. Allowing arbitrary rule changes would vastly increase their power. There are also technical challenges and moral implications to consider when implementing such changes. In summary, while technically interesting, substantial engineering challenges and incompatibility with the economic motivations and social contract embedded within the system make it unlikely to be implemented.
Updated on: 2023-05-19T16:30:41.389434+00:00