> 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 supp...@realitykeys.com https://www.realitykeys.com _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
