1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
|
Return-Path: <nxtchg@hush.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15A18BBE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:10:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from smtp2.hushmail.com (smtp2.hushmail.com [65.39.178.134])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA3F020A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:10:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp2.hushmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6537CA015A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:10:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.hushmail.com (w7.hushmail.com [65.39.178.32])
by smtp2.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:10:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by smtp.hushmail.com (Postfix, from userid 99)
id 2360041A3E; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:10:16 +0000 (UTC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:10:15 +0300
To: "=?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?=" <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
From: "NxtChg" <nxtchg@hush.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDpnzjph5SKTf+8GWgwe+njS=k2GNm9uL73RC-EV=Y5wug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjOj9eXiDG0F6G54SVKkStF_1HRu2wzGqtFF5X_NAWy4w@mail.gmail.com>
<20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
<20150627095501.C59B541A40@smtp.hushmail.com>
<20150627100400.GC25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
<20150627102912.06E2641A3E@smtp.hushmail.com>
<CABm2gDpnzjph5SKTf+8GWgwe+njS=k2GNm9uL73RC-EV=Y5wug@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20150627121016.2360041A3E@smtp.hushmail.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:10:17 -0000
On 6/27/2015 at 2:04 PM, "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
>But that option is not unknown...
It is, until it actually happens. Before that, anything is a speculation. That's why risk is attached to both "doing nothing" and "raising the limit".
For example, there's another risk that a lot of people will be disappointed in a system that can't scale (or adapt to any significant changes, for that matter).
Yes, there is the "exit" option, but that path would probably be a lot messier and unwarranted.
Various people perceive these risks differently and there is no clear mechanism currently to somehow gauge what the majority wants. So it's tempting to just give up and say: let's do nothing.
In this situation, doing a "software fork" seems like the only way to actually see how many people/interests are in favor of bigger blocks.
(Whether the majority has a moral right to dictate the minority is a tough philosophical question, which should probably be left out of this discussion :)
|
