Hardforks can be useful too. But, yes, I agree softforks are preferable whenever possible.
On Sat, May 22, 2021, 20:55 Raystonn . <rayst...@hotmail.com> wrote: > None of these required a hard fork. I should rephrase my previous email > to clarify the intended topic as hard consensus changes, requiring a hard > fork. "Soft" forks can be useful. > > Raystonn > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Jorge Timón <jti...@jtimon.cc> > *Sent:* Saturday, May 22, 2021 7:55 AM > *To:* Raystonn . <rayst...@hotmail.com>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus protocol immutability is a feature > > That is clearly not true. People entretain making changes to the protocol > all the time. Bitcoin is far from perfect and not improving it would be > stupid in my opinion. > Some improvements require changes to the consensus rules. > Recent changes include relative lock time verify or segwit. These are > important changes that made things like lightning much easier and efficient > than they could possibly be without them. > Taproot, which is a recent proposal, could help simplify the lightning > protocol even further, and make it more efficient and its usage more > private. And there are more use cases. > > There have been consensus rule changes since bitcoin started, and with > good reason. As a user, you can always oppose new changes. And if enough > users agree with you, you will be able to maintain your own chain with the > old rules. At the same time, there's nothing you can do to stop other users > who want those changes from coordinating with each other to adopt them. > > Perhaps you're interested in bip99, which discusses consensus rule changes > in more detail. > > > > On Sat, May 22, 2021, 13:09 Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Suggestions to make changes to Bitcoin's consensus protocol will only ever > be entertained if Bitcoin is completely dead without such a change. Any > attempt to change consensus protocol without a clear and convincing > demonstration to the entire network of participants that Bitcoin will die > without that change is a waste of your own time. Bitcoin's resistance to > consensus changes is a feature that makes it resistant to being coopted and > corrupted. I recommend developers focus on making improvements that do not > attempt to change the consensus protocol. Otherwise, you are simply > working on an altcoin, which is off-topic here. > > Raystonn > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
