> - How do you propose to deal with the extra risks that come from
> non-consensus hard-forks? Hard-forks themselves are quite risky, but
> non-consensus ones are extremely dangerous for consensus.
This is a non-issue.
If the hard-fork is not a consensus, then those of us that don't consent
ignore the fool that tried to hard-fork.
If a fool attempting a non-consensus hard-fork actually breaks something,
then you have a fragile system that needs some serious re-thinking.
I think a non-consensus hard-fork would be the best thing that could
happen to the bitcoin ecosystem long-term, because it would force some
re-examination of some very bad assumptions.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Benjegerdes 'da hozer' ho...@hozed.org
7 elements earth::water::air::fire::mind::spirit::soul grid.coop
Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel,
nor try buy a hacker who makes money by the megahash
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
