On Mon, Jun 29, 2015, 16:41 coderman <[1]coderman@gmail.com> wrote:

     On 6/28/15, Sean Lynch <[2]seanl@literati.org> wrote:
     > Which means that those with a stake in Bitcoin are better off if a
     fork
     > becomes popular than if an altcoin does, because if a fork becomes
     popular
     > they will already have a stake in the fork, whereas if the altcoin
     becomes
     > popular at the expense of Bitcoin they will have nothing.

     you make lots of false dichotomies here, neglecting the variations
     in
     exchange value between these possible altcoins and forks.

     "will have nothing" is not correct.
       maybe a little, maybe a lot, but more than "nothing"

     I'm simplifying out of necessity. Obviously there are intermediate
     outcomes possible.

     > Of course, if a
     > fork undermines faith in Bitcoin without becoming popular,
     everyone will be
     > screwed.

     totally screwed - this is where the heated passions about a
     non-census
     hard fork come in. lives on the line, in a not so exaggerated sense.

   Yes. And a failure to accept responsibility for one's own decisions.
   Anyone gambling everything on Bitcoin right now is an idiot, in my
   view. Their opinions should be discounted as they have proven their own
   judgement lacking. Perhaps they will be vindicated, but the fact that
   you happen to win a poker hand you played badly doesn't retroactively
   mean you played the hand well. It means you got lucky.

     and by no means am i threating anyone with harm!  i am explaining
     that
     when someone puts  the last half decade of their life and fortune
     into
     a thing, messing with it will always generate inflamed arguments.
     regardless of if you're ultimately right or not.

   Never said you were the one making threats, and I agree this sort of
   thing will create inflamed passions. All the more reason to try to
   filter out the opinions of  those with a large stake.

     i don't care how you describe that messing, consensus or not, it's
     poking in sensitive places all the same...

   A fact that makes Satoshi's decision to remain anonymous seem even
   wiser in retrospect. Perhaps this will be required of any such system
   in the future.

     > But I don't think this is likely; either it will become popular
     > and we'll all be better off, or it will flop and nobody will care.

     "not likely" - you're going to gamble livelihoods on a hunch that
     it's
     not likely?

   I'm not proposing anyone gambling anything. The gambling is being done
   by those holding Bitcoin. Holding Bitcoin places no obligation on
   anyone else. It's not a stock or bond or other instrument with an
   associated contract.

     you can see why many are so reluctant - the due diligence is lacking
     and the demeanor more experiment than careful transition...

   I doubt there is anything the larger stakeholders (as fraction of their
   net worth) would accept as due diligence. Nor is any required to start
   a fork. Any due diligence is the responsibility of those choosing to
   operate on the fork. Those involved should do it to maintain their
   reputations, but if they don't, and people get burned, their
   reputations will suffer. Death threats and advance pseudo-democracy not
   required.

     best regards,

References

   1. mailto:coderman@gmail.com
   2. mailto:seanl@literati.org