Quote from: Lauda on April 25, 2016, 09:22:39 PM

This is no 'security flaw', and therefore it does not need fixing. Your whole post is based on assumptions and the conclusion is not relevant.

clickbait award 2016

Quote from: traincarswreck on April 25, 2016, 09:05:56 PM

Note: I am know to be a staunch supporter of cores advice

I previously thought I was simply too far out of the loop to find core's roadmap, I thought it was fair and I didn't think of it. But recently I decided I wanted to see what was planned and I had a horrible time finding out, including having Luke Jr. tell me "read", even though I already had. I doubt I am anywhere near the more ignorant bitcoin player. I don't think his sentiments were warranted. More importantly I think they were telling of something...

I believe the roadmap is clearly carefully and specially designed to appeal to the technically minded while appeasingthe community in a certain deceptive fashion.

I won't go into it all, but I wrote Greg and pleaded for a customer friendly road-map.

I am not asking for core to bend to the user's will, I am asking for transparency and clarity, regardless of the effects of that transparency and clarity on the community.

The current road map is a FAQ's with a link to an old memo, that one person wrote with a tl;dr that says "I propose..."

The roadmap should be on, or at least linked on, the core homepage. The url should be /roadmap. It should be graphical and easy to read for the average customer of the currency. It should be titled "roadmap" and it should explicitly state whether a hard fork is or isn't planned. If there is a HF planned it should have the size and the date. Otherwise it should state there is not plan yet.

Imo, because of this lack of transparency the quality of bitcoin suffers in the Nashian/Gresham sense, and I believe this is the most urgent security flaw that needs to be solved.

Thanks.

please do, the last time someone did something similar it turned out they didnt tell half of the story.