MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: edmund.edgar@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBgugLSVEwDLXhgey86_rM2fTjGWXFuXsiZioJKCZiHiNg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBgs-ouEMu=LOVCmOyCGwfM1Ygxooz0shyvAuHDGGZYfJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBgugLSVEwDLXhgey86_rM2fTjGWXFuXsiZioJKCZiHiNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:40:29 +0900
Message-ID: <CA+su7OWvUQWOMGxfWfyyGnJ1=hZeYC6nSXnE_hof-ooFMB4vVg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Edmund Edgar <ed@realitykeys.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>,
	bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks
Precedence: list

> So to point out what I consider obvious: if Bitcoin requires central
> control over its rules by a group of developers, it is completely
> uninteresting to me. Consensus changes should be done using consensus, and
> the default in case of controversy is no change.

This is a really interesting thread. Since we're no longer talking
about a consensus of the core committers, which would be central
control, but instead something broader, could you say a bit more about
what this consensus might look like, and how we'll know if we've got
one?

In plain language "no controversy" sounds like very high bar for a
diverse community like this; Even bringing in P2SH kicked up a fair
bit of fur and feathers. Do you have a definition in mind where it
isn't an _impossibly_ high one?

-- 
Edmund Edgar
Founder, Social Minds Inc (KK)
Twitter: @edmundedgar
Linked In: edmundedgar
Skype: edmundedgar
http://www.socialminds.jp

Reality Keys
@realitykeys
support@realitykeys.com
https://www.realitykeys.com