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 8DD63BC6 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:50:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com (smtp3.hushmail.com [65.39.178.200]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C08D166 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:50:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BB370E015D for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:50:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.hushmail.com (w7.hushmail.com [65.39.178.32]) by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:50:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.hushmail.com (Postfix, from userid 99) id 2B57E41A3F; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:50:10 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:50:09 +0300 To: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" From: "NxtChg" In-Reply-To: <20150627122543.GE25420@amethyst.visucore.com> References: <20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com> <20150627120935.GD25420@amethyst.visucore.com> <20150627121505.6E857417EC@smtp.hushmail.com> <20150627122543.GE25420@amethyst.visucore.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-Id: <20150627125010.2B57E41A3F@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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:50:11 -0000 Greg, > But it's a strange bar to set: perfect representation of entire community. By that token, nobody can say anything is controversial if a different group is disagreeing. Sorry, for not being clear. I am not talking definitions here, of course you can call it "controversial" when you get N-1 NACK's! I object that it's enough evidence to deny any change (see below). For example, in case the interests of developers became misaligned with the interests of the community (you can't say it can't happen). Wladimir, >The *entire network* needs to agree to switch to your new software. Why the "entire network"? So if, say, 75% of everybody involved want some change and 25% don't, the majority can't have it? Well, I guess we're down to that philosophical question of whether majority can dictate minority or whether minority can be a roadblock to majority :) Probably no reason to discuss it further :) A "software fork" seems like an inevitable resolution for this.