Author: NotMike Hearn 2015-10-05 18:50:54
Published on: 2015-10-05T18:50:54+00:00
The consensus process is required for soft forks. Miners individually mine blocks that are completely empty, and this only happens when there is unanimous miner-developer consensus. On the other hand, "controversial hard forks" don't require wide agreement and developer endorsements. This is because with zero dev-agreement, there are two benefits: first, there are tremendous security issues which can be fixed by trying more than one hard fork at once, second, because each fork is equally Acked and Nacked, they will have equal standing, and therefore users will be equally indifferent to both forks and they will both live for a long time. People have overlooked how simple this issue is because of the political climate. Tom Zander argues that there is a horrible track record of doing soft forks in the past, and there are some really good technical reasons why this should not happen again. Reaching consensus is an admirable goal, but it is a goal. Anyone that is a perfectionist will know that in the real world goals are often not reached. That doesn't make them less useful. That makes them goals. A good product and a well functioning community needs rules and needs timely decisions and conflict resolution. It does not need muting of valuable voices, character assassinations, and egos.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T23:54:45.463105+00:00