- Do you think freedom is one of Bitcoin's most important qualities? Or is it more important that we ensure everyone is happy and agrees with any changes? If you had to choose, which takes priority? Freedom? Or ensuring everyone agrees?
Freedom is Bitcoin's most important quality. It is not possible for everyone to agree or be happy. Ensuring agreement and happiness is counter to the concept of freedom.
- Do you think "consensus" should always mean a hardfork at 95% agreement? Even if that means that just 6% of the network can then effectively veto any changes and stagnate progress? Or are softforks perfectly acceptable as well? How do you feel about users who express the belief that softforks effectively turn them into second-class-citizens if they don't want to to upgrade? Do they have cause to complain? Or is the fact that they can remain on this blockchain and continue transacting as they always have done a sufficient compromise? Is it right for some users to move forward with a change if others haven't given their permission for that change? Does this weaken or bypass consensus?
There is no way to enforce the kind of consensus you are describing other than through mining power and forking. Any other proposed system of governance is wishful thinking or anti-freedom.
The purpose of a soft fork has nothing to do with governance or consensus. Its purpose is to make a fork more convenient and less disruptive.
- Is it wrong or immoral to create code that causes a client to disconnect another client from the network if the features they propose are not compatible? Should users be allowed to disconnect incompatible clients if they want to? Or is this a way to cheat consensus and deprive the users running that client of the chance to express their support for a change in the rules? And, in this morality judgement, should we consider whether replay protection is included in the the client being disconnected if that means users can be safeguarded from replay attacks?
A person running a node is free to do whatever they want to do, including connecting to a node or banning it. Beyond fraud or harming other people, morality has nothing to do with it. If the node runs software that you object to, you are free to modify that software (or get somebody else to modify it for you) so that it will work the way you want it to.
- If you run a full node, are you fully aware of what rules it enforces? Do you keep up to date with the latest changes? Do you compile the code yourself so you know exactly what is going on? Or do you blindly update your node without checking what the code actually does?
I don't keep a close watch, but I try to be aware of things like the time luke-jr modified the version of Bitcoin installed with Gentoo to blacklist certain addresses.
- Most important of all, does anyone genuinely believe Core are "in control" of the Bitcoin network? Or do you think those securing the chain (both non-mining full nodes and miners) are ultimately the ones who make the decisions? Do you think some developers have too much influence? Should there be a larger number of dev teams? Does Bitcoin have a level playing field?
I don't believe that any person or group has complete control, but I feel that Bitcoin Core does exert the greatest amount of influence. Of course, Bitcoin Core itself is not a cohesive group of people, but they are controlled to some extent by an oligarchy.
I believe that having several alternate clients would be ideal, despite the engineering and coordination problems that might create.
[/list]