MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OWZdi2K6k-J063pqUgbBep0ELuZ1rm83wR5ox=kZ8CUQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADm_WcZKoMAhYvXbFMbE+5K9HOD75YkQu8_qTW4S6YN6ZMrfjA@mail.gmail.com>
	<201507172029.17056.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAE-z3OWZdi2K6k-J063pqUgbBep0ELuZ1rm83wR5ox=kZ8CUQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:22:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDq-FKwAO+7sJdFR9sLND=gy5OrnyU+UQEtDxnoMn+BH-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 102 - kick the can down the road to 2MB
Precedence: list

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hardforks are not something where voting makes sense. They need consensus
>> among /nodes/, not majority among /miners/. No hardfork has ever had such
>> a
>> vote.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> I meant that since some of the new hard fork proposals use a voting system
> for activation, they may not want to establish that precedent.

I wonder how many people read
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008936.html
apart from you...