MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <751DFAA9-9013-4C54-BC1E-5F7ECB7469CC@gmail.com>
References: <CADm_WcasDuBsop55ZWcTb2FvccaoREg8K032rUjgQUQhQ3g=XA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBi=Mw7UnxG1-0-0ZTRqxrS5+28VmowyYrGP2MAvYiu_pA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcbrMyk-=OnQ-3UvnF_8brhn+X2NqRPbo5xUXsbcZpc0=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjbATqf8DXGF7obw9a=371zQ_S0EgTapnUmukAVenTneQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+c4Zozac8=aMrAJ1N_6SR9eBD+w0e70cEnk9CG_2oZ72AS-8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBhsKD8jd9Y9+ngXY5tKUheO3d4P1b47eYL=Uzpat+KJ2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<751DFAA9-9013-4C54-BC1E-5F7ECB7469CC@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:44:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBiT5=ss9e=iac6J-A=85okF0zxMeV7H4z9-Qfx3CAWHXA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: digitsu <jerry.d.chan@bittoku.co.jp>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11350734d7aff90527cfc98f
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation &
 moral hazard
Precedence: list

--001a11350734d7aff90527cfc98f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

That's exactly the point: a hard fork does not just affect miners, and
cannot just get decided by miners. All full nodes must have accepted the
new rules, or they will be forked off when the hashrate percentage triggers=
.

Furthermore, 75% is pretty terrible as a switchover point, as it guarantees
that old nodes will still see a 25% forked off chain temporarily.

My opinion is that the role of Bitcoin Core maintainers is judging whether
consensus for a hard fork exists, and is technically necessary and safe. We
don't need a hashpower vote to decide whether a hardfork is accepted or
not, we need to be sure that full noded will accept it, and adopt it in
time. A hashpower vote can still be used to be sure that miners _also_
agree.

Currently, a large amount of developers and others believe that the
treshhold for a hardfork is not reached, especially given the fact that we
scale in the short term, as well as make many changes that long-term
benefit scalability, with just a softfork (which does not require forking
off nodes that don't adopt the new rules, for whatever reason).

--=20
Pieter
On Dec 26, 2015 17:25, "digitsu" <jerry.d.chan@bittoku.co.jp> wrote:

> So it seems that everyone is in agreement then, since a hard fork to 2M i=
s
> orthogonal to SW, and also that core should not be involved in dictating
> what the consensus rules should be, then why not put BIP102 into play wit=
h
> a 75% mining majority activation and let the market decide.
>
> As it=E2=80=99s activation only involves the miners, and its implementati=
on
> doesn=E2=80=99t affect users or exchanges, then it poses no complication =
to SW
> which can do done in parallel.
>
>
>
>

--001a11350734d7aff90527cfc98f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr">That&#39;s exactly the point: a hard fork does not just affe=
ct miners, and cannot just get decided by miners. All full nodes must have =
accepted the new rules, or they will be forked off when the hashrate percen=
tage triggers.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Furthermore, 75% is pretty terrible as a switchover point, a=
s it guarantees that old nodes will still see a 25% forked off chain tempor=
arily.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">My opinion is that the role of Bitcoin Core maintainers is j=
udging whether consensus for a hard fork exists, and is technically necessa=
ry and safe. We don&#39;t need a hashpower vote to decide whether a hardfor=
k is accepted or not, we need to be sure that full noded will accept it, an=
d adopt it in time. A hashpower vote can still be used to be sure that mine=
rs _also_ agree.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Currently, a large amount of developers and others believe t=
hat the treshhold for a hardfork is not reached, especially given the fact =
that we scale in the short term, as well as make many changes that long-ter=
m benefit scalability, with just a softfork (which does not require forking=
 off nodes that don&#39;t adopt the new rules, for whatever reason).</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">-- <br>
Pieter<br>
</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Dec 26, 2015 17:25, &quot;digitsu&quot; &lt;<=
a href=3D"mailto:jerry.d.chan@bittoku.co.jp">jerry.d.chan@bittoku.co.jp</a>=
&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">So it se=
ems that everyone is in agreement then, since a hard fork to 2M is orthogon=
al to SW, and also that core should not be involved in dictating what the c=
onsensus rules should be, then why not put BIP102 into play with a 75% mini=
ng majority activation and let the market decide.<br>
<br>
As it=E2=80=99s activation only involves the miners, and its implementation=
 doesn=E2=80=99t affect users or exchanges, then it poses no complication t=
o SW which can do done in parallel.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>

--001a11350734d7aff90527cfc98f--