From a02f3640593a4b634fbe64e28841646bbecc40ea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "David A. Harding" Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:54:49 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Hard Fork Blog: Suggested Improvements Improvements suggested by morcos, maaku, and /u/psztorc --- _posts/2015-06-16-hard-fork-policy.md | 9 +++------ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/_posts/2015-06-16-hard-fork-policy.md b/_posts/2015-06-16-hard-fork-policy.md index 6aa5ceef..81cacae2 100644 --- a/_posts/2015-06-16-hard-fork-policy.md +++ b/_posts/2015-06-16-hard-fork-policy.md @@ -8,20 +8,17 @@ title: "Bitcoin.org Hard Fork Policy" permalink: /en/posts/hard-fork-policy.html date: 2015-06-16 --- -It appears that the recent block size debate will likely result in a -contentious hard fork attempt. - Contentious hard forks are bad for Bitcoin. At the very best, a contentious hard fork will leave people who chose the losing side of the fork feeling disenfranchised. At the very worst, it will make bitcoins permanently lose their value. In between are many possible outcomes, but -none of them is good. +none of them are good. The danger of a contentious hard fork is potentially so significant that Bitcoin.org has decided to adopt a new policy: > Bitcoin.org will not promote software or services that will leave the -> previous consensus because of a contentious hard fork attempt. +> previous consensus because of an intentional and contentious hard fork attempt. This policy applies to full node software, such as Bitcoin Core, software forks of Bitcoin Core, and alternative full node @@ -37,5 +34,5 @@ fork and which continues doing whatever it would've done anyway. To be clear, we encourage wallet authors and service providers to offer their opinions on hard fork proposals, and we will not penalize anyone for contributing to a discussion. We will only stop promoting particular -wallets and services if they plan to move their users onto the +wallets and services if they plan to move their users onto a contentious hard fork by default.