Among the supporters of Blockstream / Core they are, on the one hand, Blockstream boys, ie subjects who have been hired specifically to benefit this entity at the expense of Bitcoin. The Blockstream boys have no theory to support their actions (what they say to justify constantly changing) but a goal and strategy to achieve it . For them, language is not that wonderful tool that allows us to better understand reality, but a simple tool for manipulating human beings. Why they flee the debate and try to mold and impose their story through censorship and coercion .
But among the supporters of Blockstream / Core are those who genuinely adhere to the theory of "Far Consensus", inherited from our tribal past atavism that has been identified and studied by Mengerian . Let's see what this is about.
Certain controversial issues may be interpreted differently depending on whether they perceive Bitcoin through lens "Far Consensus" or lens "Consensus Market".
Transigencia
Recently there have been many calls for compromise aimed at supporters of Bitcoin Unlimited and supporters of Bitcoin Core. In this regard, some proposals have to speak are Segwit2MB , Sergio Demian Lerner and Extension Blocks . The responses were varied, and many well - known personalities of the community see this kind of proposal a possible way to unite the party by a much needed appeasement.
Seen through the lens of the Far Consensus, these calls for compromise make sense. As it is believed that the properties of Bitcoin is based on a strong social consensus, a united community is seen as a necessary condition for technical progress. Any gap in the community is seen as a source of weakness and disorder in Bitcoin, with the potential to undermine the enthusiasm behind closed doors, and doors out to benefit criptomonedas more harmonious communities.
It is natural that people have different opinions about what is the best roadmap for the development of Bitcoin. Since, through the lens of the Far Consensus, social consensus is seen as a sine qua non for technical progress , reconciliation of these different paths is presented as a necessity. If the experts disagree on what is the best route to take, compromise seems to be the only way forward.
However, when perceived through the lens market consensus, controversy and radical disagreements are not seen as necessarily fatal problems. When there are different potential paths, expect a debate that allows market participants learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the different proposals.
From the point of view of market consensus, the idea that different groups should temporize makes little sense . The theory suggests that each proposal will be judged on their merits by the market. If one side there are people willing to support economically valuable an option, and the other side there are people willing to support with economic value choice, no one can or should force everyone to form a single group.
The best way to resolve the disagreement, according to the market consensus, is not to negotiate to reach an agreement that appeases all parties, but offer market participants a way to back up their opinions with financial commitments. For example, you could offer investors futures trading on an Exchange. This would solve the impasse in a way that would reward the elections that attract more value to Bitcoin, which would result in a more valuable for all Bitcoin.
experts
The difficulty in reconciling divergent views to achieve a unified social consensus is the reason why supporters of the Far Consensus attach great importance to the opinions of experts. As Bitcoin is a difficult system to understand, it makes sense to assign more weight to the opinions of those with demonstrated expertise or specialized knowledge. And since around certain issues there is a virtually unlimited range of views in the community, it would be impossible to reach a consensus on whether each of the thousands of different opinions were equally important will consider. Divergent opinions are considered potentially harmful because they hinder social consensus. And if these divergent views are ill-founded or based on misunderstandings, they are doubly harmful.
For these reasons, it makes sense that acceptance of theory Consensus end is associated with a propensity to assign a weight to the views of those who are seen as experts, and discard differing opinions.
Adherents to the market consensus also value the opinion of experts; the difference is that require experts to submit their views to a market test . Also they perceive the problem of trying to reconcile a myriad of opinions, but their solution to solve is based on a market mechanism that requires participants to support their views with economic commitments.
Those looking through the lens market consensus tend to be suspicious of the "experts" who try to avoid self-proclaimed that their proposals are submitted to the judgment of the market. They present the advantage obtained in terms of prestige and influence, to assume the role of expert, and without regard to profit and loss can be difficult to distinguish biased opinions of seeking to provide genuine value to Bitcoin as a system.
Reconciling differences
In a sense, differences in interpretation between the theories of Far Consensus and the market consensus are subtle. The two theories can often offer similar insights about the advantages and disadvantages of different technical options. The main difference is the prescriptive guidance that the two approaches offer us how to be weighed these pros and cons.
Far Consensus theory suggests that different options should be discussed and weighed carefully, and that the community should reach a social consensus before the technical changes are implemented.
Discussion and debate will also have a place in the theory of market consensus. But when the agreement is not possible and you need to choose a path, this theory provides a method to facilitate this choice: allow the options to be weighed by market participants willing to stake their own economic resources, who will enjoy benefits or suffer loss depending on the wisdom of his decision.
But among the supporters of Blockstream / Core are those who genuinely adhere to the theory of "Far Consensus", inherited from our tribal past atavism that has been identified and studied by Mengerian . Let's see what this is about.
Certain controversial issues may be interpreted differently depending on whether they perceive Bitcoin through lens "Far Consensus" or lens "Consensus Market".
Transigencia
Recently there have been many calls for compromise aimed at supporters of Bitcoin Unlimited and supporters of Bitcoin Core. In this regard, some proposals have to speak are Segwit2MB , Sergio Demian Lerner and Extension Blocks . The responses were varied, and many well - known personalities of the community see this kind of proposal a possible way to unite the party by a much needed appeasement.
Seen through the lens of the Far Consensus, these calls for compromise make sense. As it is believed that the properties of Bitcoin is based on a strong social consensus, a united community is seen as a necessary condition for technical progress. Any gap in the community is seen as a source of weakness and disorder in Bitcoin, with the potential to undermine the enthusiasm behind closed doors, and doors out to benefit criptomonedas more harmonious communities.
It is natural that people have different opinions about what is the best roadmap for the development of Bitcoin. Since, through the lens of the Far Consensus, social consensus is seen as a sine qua non for technical progress , reconciliation of these different paths is presented as a necessity. If the experts disagree on what is the best route to take, compromise seems to be the only way forward.
However, when perceived through the lens market consensus, controversy and radical disagreements are not seen as necessarily fatal problems. When there are different potential paths, expect a debate that allows market participants learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the different proposals.
From the point of view of market consensus, the idea that different groups should temporize makes little sense . The theory suggests that each proposal will be judged on their merits by the market. If one side there are people willing to support economically valuable an option, and the other side there are people willing to support with economic value choice, no one can or should force everyone to form a single group.
The best way to resolve the disagreement, according to the market consensus, is not to negotiate to reach an agreement that appeases all parties, but offer market participants a way to back up their opinions with financial commitments. For example, you could offer investors futures trading on an Exchange. This would solve the impasse in a way that would reward the elections that attract more value to Bitcoin, which would result in a more valuable for all Bitcoin.
experts
The difficulty in reconciling divergent views to achieve a unified social consensus is the reason why supporters of the Far Consensus attach great importance to the opinions of experts. As Bitcoin is a difficult system to understand, it makes sense to assign more weight to the opinions of those with demonstrated expertise or specialized knowledge. And since around certain issues there is a virtually unlimited range of views in the community, it would be impossible to reach a consensus on whether each of the thousands of different opinions were equally important will consider. Divergent opinions are considered potentially harmful because they hinder social consensus. And if these divergent views are ill-founded or based on misunderstandings, they are doubly harmful.
For these reasons, it makes sense that acceptance of theory Consensus end is associated with a propensity to assign a weight to the views of those who are seen as experts, and discard differing opinions.
Adherents to the market consensus also value the opinion of experts; the difference is that require experts to submit their views to a market test . Also they perceive the problem of trying to reconcile a myriad of opinions, but their solution to solve is based on a market mechanism that requires participants to support their views with economic commitments.
Those looking through the lens market consensus tend to be suspicious of the "experts" who try to avoid self-proclaimed that their proposals are submitted to the judgment of the market. They present the advantage obtained in terms of prestige and influence, to assume the role of expert, and without regard to profit and loss can be difficult to distinguish biased opinions of seeking to provide genuine value to Bitcoin as a system.
Reconciling differences
In a sense, differences in interpretation between the theories of Far Consensus and the market consensus are subtle. The two theories can often offer similar insights about the advantages and disadvantages of different technical options. The main difference is the prescriptive guidance that the two approaches offer us how to be weighed these pros and cons.
Far Consensus theory suggests that different options should be discussed and weighed carefully, and that the community should reach a social consensus before the technical changes are implemented.
Discussion and debate will also have a place in the theory of market consensus. But when the agreement is not possible and you need to choose a path, this theory provides a method to facilitate this choice: allow the options to be weighed by market participants willing to stake their own economic resources, who will enjoy benefits or suffer loss depending on the wisdom of his decision.