Didn't Gavin already said he would never do the hard fork unless 90% (super majority) is reached? if this premise is right, I dont really see the big fuzz all over this. People is still deciding and it's still as decentralized as ever, the devs can't force you to run XT or Core, the majority wins.
I was going to say this, that it isn't a problem since people vote by running nodes, but maybe OP means something else that I don't understand.
This post was a suggestion of two main concepts:
1. Forks should not be feared, and need not be feared, if they are expected.
- They are an important balancing mechanism in the system.
- They should be implemented, then have consensus applied, as Gavin has suggested, via block version activation.
2. Consensus should be a clean and fair choice.
- If there must be a "Core" client, it should be agnostic concerning controversial or priority setting changes.
- To be fair, such a client should provide the ability for users to easily select which "features"/forks they run/support.
- There should be no bias in "official" builds or the official client for such possible "features"/forks.
In short, make it easy for everyone to make their choice, program it to only "turn on" if a majority of users make that choice, and remove the politics from the actual development commits, labels, and releases.
Politics can and should exist in arguing for user adoption of a given feature/fork.
Politics should not exist via forcing a controversial update into what is regarded as the "official" reference client.
That said, Gavin has earned respect for suggesting that if he did move forward with the protocol change, he would do so in his own fork, and not the official reference client.
You're out in the woods with a group of friends sitting around the campfire (drinking bud lite swill), when a group member accidentally cuts off his hand with an axe while gathering wood. You'll notice that in these situations someone always rises up and takes command. If we wait on consensus, the guy bleeds to death. Gavin is stopping the blood - now, he's our designated driver, so let him navigate this ride - this is the natural way.
What you are saying is 100% correct... In a emergency situation like that, someone has to take the lead, to get things done. The problem with applying that rule to this situation is problematic.
The general perception is that Bitcoin are not centralized in ANY way... Not just NODE count, but also in the development. They should be represented by a global team of people with NO leader.
If Gavin stepped up to be that guy, we would sacrifice that principle. {Even though the nodes are still decentralized, the "Management" is centralized, and that is NEVER a good thing}
Individuals with that amount of power can be targetted and corrupted. {IMO there should be NO single person with that much SAY, and Bitcoin should still be represented by a global team, with the same weight}
It makes things difficult, but it keep things clean.
Yes.
This is not an immediate emergency.
It may become so in the mid-term future.
However, better to handle it down the road a ways once need and impetus has forced better alternatives to be explored.
Recommending caution is never a poor course of action.
