It won't be framed as such though - there will be one group shouting "consensus is decided by nodes/users so it's OK to re-org using a snapshot" and another group shouting "Nakamoto consensus is king" plus a contentious fork.
-
Diversity of ideas is important but it’s not the top priority on an individual’s plate, sometimes diversity takes a hit for some other value (like a false positive when blocking people to salvage one’s time), that’s balanced and normal
And it's not diversity, it's bog common error. I see "governance is good" on my tweet stream every day. Multitudes don't understand that the main value add of Bitcoin comes from using simple rules strongly enforced by security protocol to minimize vulnerability to governance.
![Todor Slavchev[Bitcoin, Litecoin🔑]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1166656964308475904/DpMD5hgd_normal.jpg)
-
-
I try to block them, but these we-need-more-governance zombie clones keep coming over the walls like plague victims from some horror flick.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
key word minimize. simple rules strongly enforced by security protocol didnt stop a bunch of ppl who are big participants of that security protocol to sign a NYA. they could totally mess it up in a heartbeat
-
Billions of heartbeats involved. A big part of why NYA was stopped was that Bitcoin's unique trust minimizing philosophy triumphed over the all-to-common NYA philosophy, which in this case favored degrading hard-to-measure decentralization for the sake of improving performance.
-
fortunatly it did triumphed but: -the level of uncertanty was unprecedented. not something id expect from my "savings account" -it was 100% cozed by the feature "no governance" - i like how confident you assume it will triumph again when it was extremely close to split in 2017
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There's a really large difference between the position that discretionary involvement in the rules of Bitcoin is a good idea and the position that a consistent adherence to Bitcoin's rules in the face of an unmitigated and existential catastrophe is unwarranted.
-
AFAIC
@hasufl argued for the latter. I understand the agreement against that (bright lines are less likely to be crossed etc), but it's quite a stretch to think his position is tantamount to reckless advocacy of discretionary control. -
Yes, I argued for the latter. I don't see how that's controversial either, it's clearly how Bitcoin works. If the rules were 100% immutable (what I meant with "radical immutability") and not just very hard to change, Bitcoin would have died several times by now from CVEs.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I don't think these things are incompatible: - The main/only value-add of Bitcoin is minimizing meat-space level trust/decision making - The amount of social-coordination involved in keeping Bitcoin going smoothly (big-picture-wise) is currently non-zero
-
Maybe the utopian goal is to get Bitcoin so decentralized that upgrading the protocol (say) is quite literally impossible, but we certainly aren't there — I'd even add that it's *a good thing we aren't* (imagine dealing with CVE-2018-17144 if we were)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.