balajis If everyone picks the same safe, risk-adjusted option it stops being quite so safe and risk-adjusted. See: MSFT jobs, sovereign defaults.
8) Bitcoin devs should post a notice on software to inform node operators of their timeframe to respond to non-backward compatible changes.
7) IMO, software dev & internet tech are fast paced and participants should be responding to major changes in weeks/months, not a year+.
6) As a result, many Bitcoin developers are extremely conservative and suggest that lead time for hard forks should be greater than 1 year.
5) Problem: devs haven’t communicated to node operators the expected lead time of notices for deploying non-backward compatible changes.
4) Bitcoin devs aren’t responsible for damages caused by node operators who don’t keep themselves apprised of developments to the protocol.
3) Bitcoin protocol developers have a responsibility to give node operators advance notice of non-backward compatible upgrades.
2) Thus Bitcoin node operators have a responsibility to maintain both the software and the hardware they are using to run their node.
1) If you administer a computer that is used to secure people’s money, you have responsibility to keep it running like a well-oiled machine.
@el33th4xor Perhaps because Bitcoin’s target audience is “everyone,” devs are unwilling to explicitly exclude anyone. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@el33th4xor People should stop arguing about the cost to run a node unless they’re willing to develop a minimum specification.
RT @el33th4xor: No Such Thing as Developing a Fee Market https://t.co/ioe9Ay5A1q
3) If you’re certain that the BTC exchange rate must rise, put your money where your mouth is and advance the self-fulfilling prophecy! :-)
2) This is even assuming miners sell all of their coins (or sell on public markets), which they don’t, as I noted https://t.co/Dh5DNi5c3J
1) Over 100,000 BTC sold daily on exchanges. Block reward halving (1,800 fewer daily) is unlikely to substantially affect exchange rate.