> I think if even 1 developer has a court order for them to push to master, it will happen whether anyone wants it to, since GitHub is already known to mindlessly abide by government requests. (see popcorntime dmca)
No, it will not happen since a majority of the devs are US-based and developers in the US can't be compelled to produce speech in the USA. Neither will it matter even if someone with push commits pushes a theft-branch to the github repository, since nobody would run it.
> The question of who is forking and is who isn't raises from 50%/50% to 25%/75% until the numerator approaches zero. For the sake of networking the question isn't "whether I want to accept this patch" but "whether I think most people will accept this patch."
This is false, no. There are literally tens of thousands nodes worldwide and achieving a worldwide-jurisdiction hostile patch push when compelled speech is illegal in many developed nations would be essentially impossible, and I would be glad to bet you impossible unless Bitcoin were already dead. In any event you're presuming nobody would be able to mount a legal defence in the first place against illegal court orders.
A hardfork change of this nature literally requires global, immediate, coordinated roll-out, or it will simply fail. There's a reason why there have been no contentious hard forks in the entire history of Bitcoin.
> For the miners to have leverage with developers they need to be able to take over the code themselves. The next set of developers will have this issue, ad infinitum, unless the cycle is broken somehow.
This is a fantasist scenario, completely at odds with reality. There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars wrapped up in Bitcoin. That block of wealth and capability won't just sit there and be pushed to run something that would literally wipe them all out overnight. It's fantasist nonsense.
The scenario of one bloc or another demanding some change or other is similarly nonsensical due very specifically to the carefully-curated decentralization of Bitcoin and the nature of its consensus—again, the hard forks you are envisioning have a zero chance of being committed as locally-compelled speech, let alone by some legal jurisdiction attempting to compel tens of thousands of people worldwide into running backdoored software which literally none of them would consensually run. Like it's nonsense.
Similarly, miners who produce blocks which reassign any money without cryptographic signatures behind the money will be very simply, producing blocks which are the exact same thing as not producing blocks at all.
At this point, with the newness of your account and your odd half-blind awareness of how Bitcoin works, I'm going to presume you're not actually discussing this in good faith.
No, it will not happen since a majority of the devs are US-based and developers in the US can't be compelled to produce speech in the USA. Neither will it matter even if someone with push commits pushes a theft-branch to the github repository, since nobody would run it.
> The question of who is forking and is who isn't raises from 50%/50% to 25%/75% until the numerator approaches zero. For the sake of networking the question isn't "whether I want to accept this patch" but "whether I think most people will accept this patch."
This is false, no. There are literally tens of thousands nodes worldwide and achieving a worldwide-jurisdiction hostile patch push when compelled speech is illegal in many developed nations would be essentially impossible, and I would be glad to bet you impossible unless Bitcoin were already dead. In any event you're presuming nobody would be able to mount a legal defence in the first place against illegal court orders.
A hardfork change of this nature literally requires global, immediate, coordinated roll-out, or it will simply fail. There's a reason why there have been no contentious hard forks in the entire history of Bitcoin.
> For the miners to have leverage with developers they need to be able to take over the code themselves. The next set of developers will have this issue, ad infinitum, unless the cycle is broken somehow.
This is a fantasist scenario, completely at odds with reality. There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars wrapped up in Bitcoin. That block of wealth and capability won't just sit there and be pushed to run something that would literally wipe them all out overnight. It's fantasist nonsense.
The scenario of one bloc or another demanding some change or other is similarly nonsensical due very specifically to the carefully-curated decentralization of Bitcoin and the nature of its consensus—again, the hard forks you are envisioning have a zero chance of being committed as locally-compelled speech, let alone by some legal jurisdiction attempting to compel tens of thousands of people worldwide into running backdoored software which literally none of them would consensually run. Like it's nonsense.
Similarly, miners who produce blocks which reassign any money without cryptographic signatures behind the money will be very simply, producing blocks which are the exact same thing as not producing blocks at all.
At this point, with the newness of your account and your odd half-blind awareness of how Bitcoin works, I'm going to presume you're not actually discussing this in good faith.