pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @jimmysong 11 May \ on: The Utility of Bike Shedding OP_RETURN limits bitcoin
I'm going to disagree with this. We're in a consensus system. I don't think it's going to get any easier to get two opposing groups to agree. If anything, the split seems more permanent to me and possibly each camp having their own software. I think that's a good thing, but one of the necessary consequences is that consensus decisions will be that much harder to push through.
I don't think it's going to get any easier to get two opposing groups to agree.
I don't either, but one group will have a majority. That is relevant for consensus. I'm not sure how relevant it is for bitcoin consensus changes in particular though - given that not all nodes are equal in a fork scenario.
I also agree that each camp will have their own software, which I also agree is healthy. For consensus changes, that isn't much different than one group running an old version and the other running a new version with a new opcode, right?
The only point I'm able to make is that people vote for politicians, laws, and perhaps bitcoin forks, based on alliances more than anything else. Before the
OP_RETURN limit drama, there wasn't enough trust for any majority to form. I'm not saying a majority has formed, but it feels like trust has been built between groups of people where there was none before. I'd argue that will make consensus easier if we define consensus as a majority deciding to do something.reply