Well I'd like to think that with an economy all parts of it interact with each
other in ways more complex than simplistic imperative logic.
I agree that the economic majority is essentially what matters in a hard fork
but everyone (miners,devs,public thought leaders,businesses) is part of that
economy. Additionally what miners signal as their intention affects the
decision of that economic majority (and vice versa). You can see the effects
of this in traditional political processes in how preliminary vote polling
results affect (reinforce) the final vote.
We also can see the results of this in (dare I mention) the whole XT affair
which had the signed intent of many of the economy (payment processors and
wallets and one miner pool) and the rest of the miners did not go along with
it. This experiment either means that the rest of the miners couldn't be
bothered to signal at all (because they didn't know how) or they were affected
by the influence of core devs or the opinions of others on the matter and
rejected the economic majority. (Which would imply core devs have some power
by way of indirect influence) I would be inclined to believe the latter was
more likely.
The conclusion which this would seem to imply is that at the very least, miners
matter (to what exact extent is debatable). And although there is no direct
control of any party over the other in the strict sense, the public vocal
opinions of any part of the Bitcoin economy does have an effect in its ability
to sway the opinions of the other parts.
Digitsu
—
Regards,
On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Luke Dashjr <l...@dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Friday, November 13, 2015 4:01:09 PM digi...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Forgive the frankness but I don't see why signaling your intent to support
>> an upgrade to one side of a hard fork can be seen as a bad thing. If for
>> nothing else doesn't this make for a smoother flag day? (Because once you
>> signal your intention, it makes it hard to back out on the commitment.)
> It isn't a commitment in any sense, nor does it make it smoother, because for
> a hardfork to be successful, it is the *economy* that must switch entirely.
> The miners are unimportant.
>> If miners don't have any choice in hard forks, who does? Just the core
>> devs?
> Devs have even less of a choice in the matter. What is relevant is the
> economy: who do people want to spend their bitcoins with? There is no
> programmatic way to determine this, especially not in advance, so the best we
> can do is a flag day that gets called off if there isn't clear consensus.
> Luke
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
