Good morning Jeremy,
> This also has strong precedent in other important technical bodies, e.g. from
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282 On Consensus and Humming in the
> IETF.
>
> Even worse is the "horse-trading" sort of compromise: "I object to
> your proposal for such-and-so
*> ... in this post I will argue against frequent soft forks with a single
or minimal*
*> set of features and instead argue for infrequent soft forks with batches*
*> of features.*
I think this type of development has been discussed in the past and has
been rejected.
from: Matt Corallo's post:
h
I was hoping to delay this post as long as possible because there are so many
interesting and important things to discuss other than soft forks and consensus
changes that seem to have taken a backseat this year due to Taproot activation.
In addition, there seems to be a world of opportunity to l
