Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.160.172 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.160.172;
	envelope-from=stephencalebmorse@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-yk0-f172.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAM7BtUrN9D__ha63Qfs2Fi4HSUFWb8BArHni9yFKRSdLSxCNnA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABHVRKSFV_dXZeLnhBLfRK=wrBFsRH5kFBZqwECh-LyCkwrmtQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAM7BtUod0hyteqx-yj8XMwATYp73Shi0pvdcTrW0buseLGc_ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABHVRKT7H1p67Bz_T_caaGFnfuswnC+kXKGdkpRhtXUZQv3HtQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAM7BtUrN9D__ha63Qfs2Fi4HSUFWb8BArHni9yFKRSdLSxCNnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 22:33:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CABHVRKS5Mnp9vSJ6mZwNroY7jbBJx+4d+m4hVpWONisaMvBNUw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Morse <stephencalebmorse@gmail.com>
To: Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11395eceb09202051793e3fd
Cc: bitcoin-development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Max Block Size: Simple Voting Procedure
Precedence: list

--001a11395eceb09202051793e3fd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Pindar,

yes and it's a good idea to separate the hard/soft fork upgrades. The point
> being here is that we're also establishing a process for the community to
> self-determine the way forward in a transparent and verifiable manner.
>
> What's not to like? :)
>
> I'll probably have some time on Sunday to help hack something up but I
> don't think this is that heavy a coding lift? What am I missing?
>

As Matt mentioned, many members of the bitcoin community would be hesitant
about giving miners this much power. It essentially lets them vote to
change the rules of the system. But miners are not the only part of this
ecosystem, and they are not the only ones affected by the choice of block
size limit, so they probably shouldn't be the only ones with a vote.
Instead, we vote with the software we run, and all upgrade.

So, while I think an idea like this has its merits, I would bet that it's
fairly unlikely to get enough support to be merged into bitcoin core.

Best,
Stephen

--001a11395eceb09202051793e3fd
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Pindar,<div><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"g=
mail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"g=
mail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>yes and it&#39;s a good idea to=
 separate the hard/soft fork upgrades. The point being here is that we&#39;=
re also establishing a process for the community to self-determine the way =
forward in a transparent and verifiable manner.=C2=A0<br></div><div><br></d=
iv><div>What&#39;s not to like? :)<br><br></div><div>I&#39;ll probably have=
 some time on Sunday to help hack something up but I don&#39;t think this i=
s that heavy a coding lift? What am I missing?</div></div></div></div></blo=
ckquote><div><br></div><div>As Matt mentioned, many members of the bitcoin =
community would be hesitant about giving miners this much power. It essenti=
ally lets them vote to change the rules of the system. But miners are not t=
he only part of this ecosystem, and they are not the only ones affected by =
the choice of block size limit, so they probably shouldn&#39;t be the only =
ones with a vote. Instead, we vote with the software we run, and all upgrad=
e.</div><div><br></div><div>So, while I think an idea like this has its mer=
its, I would bet that it&#39;s fairly unlikely to get enough support to be =
merged into bitcoin core.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Best,<br>Stephen</=
div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div>

--001a11395eceb09202051793e3fd--