> On Oct 5, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Monday 5. October 2015 20.56.34 Gregory Maxwell wrote: >> (In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator >> contributors that disagree). > > Regular contributor? > > Please explain how for a fork in the protocol should you only listen to > regular Bitcoin Core contributors?
Furthermore, Bitcoin is significantly more than a "software project": it sits at a unique intersection of computer science, economics, physics, law and more. While I agree that minor bug-fixes and code-maintenance-type issues should be dealt with quietly by developers, decisions regarding Bitcoin’s governance and its evolution should be shaped by an interdisciplinary group of stakeholders from across the community. The hard- vs soft-fork debate is not just a code maintenance issue. Once again, let’s use the current gridlock in Core to rally the growth of new forkwise-compatible implementations of the protocol. Gavin and Mike’s initiative with BIP101 and Bitcoin XT should be encouraged as one possible model for coming to consensus on hard-forking changes. Best regards, Peter _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
