and that this issue has been used as an attempt to change governance
*sigh*
How many times does it have to be said?
Developers. Are. Not. Governors. Please get this batshit insane notion out of your head. And I mean
all of you. Everyone on this forum who thinks any developers are somehow
in charge or
in control. You are fundamentally and utterly wrong in how you perceive governance. If someone was using the issue to claim that we need to change the way in which the consensus protocol works,
that would be a change in governance. Every time some UASF supporter talks about excluding the miners from the equation altogether and forcing a POW change,
THAT is a change in governance.
A hard fork resulting from a significant majority of those securing the network (that's a mix of both mining nodes
and non-mining full nodes) freely choosing to run code enforcing new rules is
exactly how Bitcoin was designed to work and
is NOT a change in governance. Stop talking shit.
If you want a coin where governance is dictated by developers, go away and use Ripple. You simply don't belong here.
Thanks for your perspective, yet I am not going to concede that I am talking about this matter incorrectly...
Maybe we are getting caught up on semantics, yet the main framework of my contention should be obvious.
The fact of the matter has been that since XT, Classic and BU there have been various whiny attempts to complain that bitcoin is too stagnant and bitcoin needs to be able to change more easily and bitcoin was designed to be able to change easily... blah blah blah.. therefore hardfork and hardfork frequently in order that bitcoin can adjust to changing markets and become more competitive with modern payment systems blah blah blah.. bitcoin is broken the way it is and therefore it should be easier to change.
Those are attempts at changes in governance because they attempt to make bitcoin easier to change based on false premises and by assertions that there are technical problems and that bitcoin is broke and bitcoin should be x, y or z and it is not achieving.. blah blah blah.. Arguing that there is an emergency in order to deceive and trick into lowering consensus levels and consensus mechanisms.
So whether you disagree with my understanding or not or my use of the term 'governance", my point remains valid that there are ongoing complaints about the system that is in place (concededly evolving with the passage of time as you mentioned examples of possible ways to evolve) in order to attempt to lower various consensus thresholds and to make bitcoin more moldable, and even if some of those changes do occur over time, as you mentioned with your examples, it does not mean that there is not going to be resistance to various more extreme attempts, such as attempts to hardfork at lower consensus levels.