Let me take a pass at explaining how I see this.

1) Code changes to Bitcoin Core that don't change consensus:  Wladimir is
the decider but he works under a process that is well understood by
developers on the project in which he takes under reasonable consideration
other technical opinions and prefers to have clear agreement among them.

2) Changes to the consensus rules: As others have said, this isn't anyone's
decision for anyone else.  It's up to each individual user as to what code
they run and what rules they enforce.  So then why is everyone so up in
arms about what Mike and Gavin are proposing if everyone is free to decide
for themselves?  I believe that each individual user should adhere to the
principle that there should be no changes to the consensus rules unless
there is near complete agreement among the entire community, users,
developers, businesses miners etc.  It is not necessary to define complete
agreement exactly because every individual person decides for themselves.
I believe that this is what gives Bitcoin, or really any money, its value
and what makes it work, that we all agree on exactly what it is.  So I
believe that it is misleading and bad for Bitcoin to tell users and
business that you can just choose without concern for everyone else which
code you'll run and we'll see which one wins out.  No.  You should run the
old consensus rules (on any codebase you want) until you believe that
pretty much everyone has consented to a change in the rules.  It is your
choice, but I think a lot of people that have spent time thinking about the
philosophy of consensus systems believe that when the users of the system
have this principle in mind, it's what will make the system work best.

3) Code changes to Core that do change consensus: I think that Wladimir,
all the other committers besides Gavin, and almost all of the other
developers on Core would defer to #2 above and wait for its outcome to be
clear before considering such a code change.

I'm sure my description of point 2 is not the most eloquent or clear, but
maybe someone else can try to elucidate this principle if they've grasped
what I'm trying to say.

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:04 PM, <justusranv...@riseup.net> wrote:

> Hash: SHA512
> On 2015-06-18 16:28, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > This is an engineering list.  The quote precisely describes how the
> > bitcoin
> > consensus system functions.
> >
> > Users' choice is largely binary:  Follow the rules, or bitcoin software
> > ignores you.
> Software engineers should understand that they have a binary choice:
> produce the software that your customers want, or the world will ignore
> your software.
> There is *no inherent value* to Bitcoin's software rules. The only value
> that is exists is that produced by the individuals who voluntarily
> choose to run the software.
> Failing to account for all design requirements is bad engineering.
> Nobody cares about the design features of a bridge to nowhere.
> Version: GnuPG v2
> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVgvoDAAoJECpf2nDq2eYj0h4P/0YaTsS963qpb63zvB6WlIPS
> 2lhCJ9FtAd3II5Et+5c/cisfJ9YI2OnM0y8nQpyB9NEOeueN1L1sLFcayE5aHASd
> EgF7F81AhQD2iSIVwQNs2qAzrZNC2/Nx+nBzBDcrgZ6gRiPpQdsNLy2p0OuZdOgX
> yG4xl6tKADB2kNi6tVPtZqUC300uQHvggtm+pexYilT0ojEbeVHCoDV40MNDZC2h
> 1kcdTnGU2SHJJqeZN2vChJCOMfhmK4JwKgoz7JRXe/GHkUUJKriE6Kb7SVczii9e
> 9qfcosbnR3gjATMoHFYuJX/nsUx52Q1LM9eQgvE8Ml+6Mim5bj2KCJFh7YISxSq9
> FhDujfZFCRRQLPJCSkEUePxU/LS7lmoTZXYl3Zz1j9zbq4ncpRHpIFy9QX6iIqK6
> Dursnge9ELQwB+H6HoosWRzxOZyo+oiGj17OngJvZYcvzrc2wjHbpZfVqSkmZepU
> SfJZ64O7yjjXjITwhOc4XF2drzvhsjTsHH5BIwdbCn82SoCkJIwXraj7sxIundli
> LUJBPiAE0csdmsvW/2kkxLsd9JwTw9lJ9Pf8fiqH3itgrkPkO5mf10DPPnay1SNk
> Wnm1bAJ05WnKXSo0m0SzaFgZkdfFuhWR4fieSzhLpa+s/HHj18NZvJCmCBR6ic9G
> 0A+51wwSZnAdMIw7lwIb
> =r4Co
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to