Author: Bryan Cheng 2015-07-22 18:45:01
Published on: 2015-07-22T18:45:01+00:00
The email thread discusses the idea of consensus-driven changes in Bitcoin Core and the potential impact on the network's governance. The writer agrees with the idea that Bitcoin is a consensus-driven protocol, but disagrees with the conclusion that this means the network is being forced down a certain path. They argue that upgrading to a version of Bitcoin Core that is incompatible with one's ideals is not a forced choice, as there are alternative options such as forks or staying on an older version. They also suggest that properly structured consensus rules can pull the minority along with the majority. The writer briefly touches on the development of a fee market and suggests that increasing Bitcoin's capacity as a network is not inherently incompatible with the development of a fee market. They argue that considering a fee market to be formed of only a single set of variables is not sound economic analysis. Another email in the thread raises the question of whether controversial changes should be implemented via the consensus process or through hard forking. The writer suggests that if the default in case of controversy is no change, then controversial changes may never get implemented via this process, leading others to hard fork the code and make the process irrelevant. The writer questions whether hard-forking disruption is worse than coming up with a process to handle controversial changes.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T03:18:23.849775+00:00