j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckMý<div class="post"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg27691#msg27691">Quote from: chaord on December 07, 2010, 07:43:13 AM</a></div><div class="quote">I completely agree here. Even though his "blessing" is not necessary, it could potentially save a lot of time and effort if we can at least get Satoshi involved in the discussion. Does anyone here have enough of a working relationship with Satoshi? I know he is quite evasive these days.</div><br/>We need to get Satoshi's approval if something goes into the main Bitcoin client. There are other applications involved here besides the DNS system, even if that seems to have high priority at the moment. We could create a patch that would put hooks into the Bitcoin software to permit these kind of changes, but it could also be for naught if Satoshi rejects that patch. Since this is also a major architectural change to the software, it seems highly unlikely that it would get accepted unless we can demonstrate a clear need for this idea or show some huge benefits that would help Bitcoin be adopted as a currency. It is also a whole bunch of software development that depends on just one person accepting that change on essentially a whim.<br/><br/>In short, if we decide to put this into Bitcoin, Satoshi is the gatekeeper. We could completely fork Bitcoin, which is essentially what we are proposing here anyway as the alternative with these separate coins. That is our choice.</div> text/html
https://whatsonchain.com/tx/583ea3febfe74afe96cc0c4ecd2ce581c57e4682cf35e1d5beec4eabb6d734b0