default in case of controversy is no change.
I think the result of this would probably be that no controversial changes ever get implemented via this process so others will hard fork the code and eventually make this process irrelevant. Since you need close to 100% agreement the irrelevance would have to come as a step function which will manifest itself in a rather disruptive manner.
The question is really is this hark-forking disruption worse than coming up with some kind of process to handle controversial changes.
Russ _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
