Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on December 24, 2015, 05:51:27 AM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on December 24, 2015, 05:39:38 AM

Yes, there is a huge amount of inertia and for a very good reason, that is very organic and was to be expected if you have the right experience.

-snip-

Nuclear power plants and oil-rig safety shutdown systems that include software hardly ever make changes to their code after it has been commissioned and the plant "goes live" with active material. It takes committees of programmers and managers poring over every line to get even the simplest changes into an active system.

The disconnect between what is happening here and what the public have been told to "want to happen" is astounding for anybody with any experience in high-risk industrial software systems. The bitcoin protocol is almost complete now and will hardly ever change from now or else it will risk catastrophic failure. It is just very, very unfortunate that Gavin and Hearn "went there" with the whole hard fork MAD power grab, against the vast majority of the development community's technically better judgement and in an entirely reckless manner for critical infrastructure software management.

How does segwit fit with this critical infrastructure stasis analogy? Where garzik's plan does not. Huh

I agree that most of the network didn't want to jump into the arms of a benevolently dictatorial Hearn, but that does not preclude future possibility of hard forking from the previously dominant implementation's centrally planned capacity policy.

That's a damn good question, but don't hold your breath waiting for an answer from the cripplecoiners. They're only conservative when it comes to the obsolete blocksize limit. Lightning networks, sidechains, segwit, well that's just innovation!