Re: A replacement Alert System should be considered to promote updates as necessary
⭐ Merited by ETFbitcoin (1)
but bitcoin software is a special case as consensus rule changes require mass spontaneous upgrades
No it doesn't, in fact a decenteralized system cannot change like that. If bitcoin can be forced into "mandatory mass upgrades" then it has failed.Moreover, well constructed changes in consensus rules are detected and responded to by existing software:
(And not just at the change, but in advance too!)
Quote
I don't really appreciate the tone here, that's not warranted.
I apologize for offending, but you appear to be wading in somewhat uninformed and telling other people what they should do. This is very insulting. I don't mean to offend, but with your approach you are going to get a blunt response.Quote
Also, I didn't imply a centralised world,
Perhaps you didn't intend to, but a world where we depend on trusted parties with special secret keys that have special powers is that kind of world.Quote
original post. Forums, reddit, mailing lists are all centralised forms of communication to some degree. All of those suggested alternatives to an alert/notification system require a level of trust. They are not trustless.
And none are official, people use all of them and many more. There are singular methods of communication that are highly controlled but communication between people is not.Quote
Yes, this justification applies equally to a client alert/notification system.
It does not, because a message displayed on your screen commanding urgent and immediate action does not provide a timeframe for public review and communication to take place.Quote
Multisignature is better described as semi-decentralised.
It depends on a trusted authority, the that the authority is a (perhaps informal) corporation rather than a natural person doesn't change the fact that such a system has a fixed center. Not only should users not want to depend on one, prudent parties don't want to be one because of the generation of completely uncompensated risk. (It becomes attractive to compromise or even kidnap key holders in order to generate false notices; no one pays us to take on risks like that so we want. The kind of people who wouldn't care about that are the kind of people who on no account should you ever trust with it...)Quote
This would be my preliminary proposal for a "best practice" notification system:
You will have more luck with proposals if you first demonstrate empathy and a high degree of understanding. I don't feel that you are doing that here. In particular, the claims that consensus systems require sudden/unexpected changes or that we're currently not able to have users detect consensus rule changes -- when we already have mechanisms for this which work.