From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79280BC4 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:25:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8E697C for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:25:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicnd19 with SMTP id nd19so64444574wic.1 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 05:25:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=3TnruBvvuKrymQ0Dfp+VnrLiqtOZ7m9nNSGHMQuVH9c=; b=JlfH4ehxZGnNVDX/atC/WkrsVW/IR4Bf7Qayy8SNxfIdB90lHAsE/EOJLzemkm9IVb GJ2oAMpw+8oXowbGJMSh8NnTzMosp+pB+SlB7m1AcCJYcODHjITvqsAhREVdCbLWZy8x wlMKSxMCxZxPgMGk6Aac8nFN9urJ+zvpeOEqdUFL9cslhGotxcwk8puPPMZiNcU1Xst7 QwMkae6hFCKQE5k2YjrOSMkpj2wlL0qOBeTUrltzBMX+ADm0ynIW/4TCHgHxUqXm0+Gy NQwAC5HY6/wkhRxNnZHFw+wKwCFvC4HAFljOgi9qka3gV0Q9+0Ml4ozrxgzTnJkRHI2d Ylcg== X-Received: by 10.180.76.8 with SMTP id g8mr5294756wiw.79.1435407946561; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 05:25:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from amethyst.visucore.com (dhcp-089-098-228-253.chello.nl. [89.98.228.253]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n6sm2785165wic.16.2015.06.27.05.25.45 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 27 Jun 2015 05:25:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 14:25:43 +0200 From: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" To: NxtChg Message-ID: <20150627122543.GE25420@amethyst.visucore.com> References: <20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com> <20150627120935.GD25420@amethyst.visucore.com> <20150627121505.6E857417EC@smtp.hushmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150627121505.6E857417EC@smtp.hushmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:25:48 -0000 > It was pointed several times before that with enough loud minority you can make any change seem controversial. Yes, absolutely. Pushing something through despite a loud miniority (certainly a well-informed one with valid reasons) is controversial. This is not about miniorities and majorities. The *entire network* needs to agree to switch to your new software. If there are months-long heated discussions on every possible forum that is a clear sign that your change is controversial. As Greg Sanders already says, we know one when we see one... Wladimir