Author: Gregory Maxwell 2015-10-05 18:35:13
Published on: 2015-10-05T18:35:13+00:00
Sergio Demian Lerner, in an email to bitcoin-dev mailing list, raises concern about the established criteria that all technical objections must be addressed until that person agrees. He argues that ignoring technical objections is against established criteria and if the change is made without addressing the objections, then the "uncontroversial" criteria is violated and credibility is lost. Lerner suggests that a new governance model would be required for which the change is within the established rules. He warns that responding to objections on never-ending threads can bring the project to a standstill.In response to Lerner's concerns, another contributor to Bitcoin Core explains that no instance exists where an active contributor has claimed that no change to consensus can happen without 100% support. The contributor believes that Lerner has accepted a particular framing that only supports one conclusion. The contributor notes that soft forks can happen at any time at the whim of miners and are categorically different than hard forks. They further explain that the space of soft-forks that contributors to Bitcoin Core would ever consider is a tiny space of all possible soft-forks and cannot meaningfully undermine the properties provided by the rules enforced within the software.Finally, the contributor argues that the behavior of technology arising from inherent compatibility radically lowers the cost of deployment and prevents industry-wide flag days and tight release synchronization. They also suggest that even someone trying to disrupt the process can provide an avenue for learning by acting as an adversary that causes contributors to extend their minds and understanding. The contributor believes that the process for CLTV has been ongoing for around a year and a half and has little risk of being substantially disrupted at this point.
Updated on: 2023-05-19T22:12:46.587596+00:00