From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2017 00:08:29 +0100
Message-ID: <10846872.WfBIm3d0e7@cherry>
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzvsizuxPCRKcVKA+SHxK0Dp92Bnw1xag+oUFLrvU6Lw7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7169224.bI6Cz5OEL8@cherry>
	<CAAcC9ysBJcSyMoTAuyFL+1D4m=-LZOgQF_pb4AFC5vpv-yMAHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADJgMzvsizuxPCRKcVKA+SHxK0Dp92Bnw1xag+oUFLrvU6Lw7A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Classic 1.2.0 released
Precedence: list

On Saturday, 7 January 2017 21:15:11 CET Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> There actually isn't an activation threshold in Bitcoin Classic.

Thats partly correct.
There is just not a formal one, there very much is an informal and practical 
threshold.

I, and I'm not alone in this, think that a formal vote or an algorithm to 
decide something will happen or not reeks too much like central planning and 
more importantly that it is too inflexible for real world use.
Its fine for simple upgrades, and we have seen lots of success there.

It would be a mistake to think that miners can just start mining with 
Classic and make something that Core doesn't understand. That would have 
negative effects and thus won't happen. Less social people will ask why and 
maybe ask how we avoid this. They misunderstand the social and economic 
parts of Bitcoin.

The block size is an ongoing debate. 
I find it very hard to believe that all the people replying in outrage to my 
release announcement completely missed this.

I see no point in bringing it up in a BIP or on this list as some central 
cabal that can make decisions for or against.  It is in actual fact being 
decided in the real world, out of yours and my control.

Classic is a tool to that end. No more. No less.
-- 
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel