On Mon, Jun 29, 2015, 20:12 coderman <[1]coderman@gmail.com> wrote:

     On 6/29/15, Sean Lynch <[2]seanl@literati.org> wrote:
     > ...
     > Yes. And a failure to accept responsibility for one's own
     decisions.

     this is not about poor user decisions,
      this is about violation of the contract "a bitcoin is forever (and
     in
     the blockchain)"

   With a hard fork, the Bitcoins exist in both forks. If one dies, they
   live on in the remaining one. If Bitcoin itself is never forked and
   dies, the contract is violated. But I have to ask, contract with whom?
   This is part of the specification of the protocol, but people are only
   bound by it insofar as they choose to implement the protocol. And
   probably as far as they choose to participate in the network. But a
   fork need not require any interaction with the original network aside
   from fetching the block chain prior to the block it forks from.

     you see expediency, and no excuses for those lacking judgment.
      their eyes prescient instead, until one comes to change the rules
     out
     from under their feet...

   I see what could be the only viable course. Consensus is not practical
   in a large, diverse community with vastly divergent goals.

     to assume old coins can "just be" resolved for all holders in all
     circumstances is to lie, and there is nothing else to call
     "deprecating old coins unilaterally" other than a hard-fork, and a
     non-consensus one at that.

   Nobody can deprecate old coins unilaterally. It's up to each individual
   to decide what they're worth and whether to participate. As I said, as
   I understand your use of the term "consensus", a hard fork is by
   definition non-consensus, because if there were consensus everyone
   would just switch to the new protocol. Sure, people could consent to
   allow others to work on another protocol, but there will always be
   plenty of people who only want there to be one chain, so consensus of
   that form is impossible.

     > 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.

     sure; these are very different from a "non-consensus hard-fork"
      [deprecate old, force to new]

     intentionally trying to divert and betray the contract inherent
     since
     the start - a bitcoin is forever - is more than "just a fork", it's
     also a stab in the back.

   I am sympathetic to the view that "law" = people's reasonable
   expectations, but whether those expectations are reasonable is really
   what we're discussing here. I think Bitcoin is both too immature and
   too decentralized to be able to say yes. Maturity will eventually trump
   decentralization for this purpose.

     i don't know how to solve a transition like this, but i know a
     forced
     hard fork is near the worst way to handle it.

   I think "forced" is too strong a word here. Against whom is force being
   used? Who is having to do something against their will? Or who was
   defrauded and by whom? From a consent standpoint, this is no different
   than forking any other open source project.

     > Any due diligence is the responsibility of those choosing to
     operate on the
     > fork.

     agreed; thanks for the patient response to my dismissive retort.

     best regards,

   And thanks for taking the time to discuss this.

References

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