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 1C71386 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 09:46:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from smtp10.hushmail.com (smtp10.hushmail.com [65.39.178.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71B08E8 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 09:46:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp10.hushmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp10.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2DC32C028E for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 09:46:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=hush.com; h=date:to:subject:from; s=hush; bh=8Arq19N4IHx/zthViwMnFVmHwkc7G1rOO2BmtyIEZyg=; b=QdZ1M68Cc5bGrjxrqo2hDz8KRum5Qo7zzuTEWft48ID1a91wjYtsGxKJkqllQdcipu6HDsBSCEWxZcEUaL2cpirUDBsq1aqCdfVfHZ3Zqn/KCxCT9cSkRCzSA9pYh68QI0mhDg4tTJ1fff5oGMvzc3tvQkymukdOTGgU7JddQeQ0JPz8db5O1Jb+WOQDUlANFfexrVBkqrwxDCSkEzmyHinwSm1Oz8zn/Oai0x2HRzVn3SyMfNHRPLYs/1/CfUt8DaJkR7y5MMPGMcL0mEjtB9JLU8iSeqLqoC5SNyH+/w1M2SzQA6rKh/SpzWyLwY+D7U8CXW20JYeMHbCWEj/jmQ== Received: from smtp.hushmail.com (w9.hushmail.com [65.39.178.29]) by smtp10.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 09:46:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.hushmail.com (Postfix, from userid 99) id 2344943128; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 09:46:12 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 12:46:11 +0300 To: "Eric Lombrozo" From: "NxtChg" In-Reply-To: References: <20150817100918.BD1F343128@smtp.hushmail.com> <1439815244.89850.YahooMailBasic@web173102.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <20150817133438.DDD4243128@smtp.hushmail.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-Id: <20150818094612.2344943128@smtp.hushmail.com> 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] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT 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: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 09:46:12 -0000 Eric, >FWIW... These are all good points and I agree with most of them. Yes, the block size debate is a lucky historical accident, which makes it easier for XT to pull off the split, but that's not the point. The point is, the split _must_ happen because the centralized governance of Bitcoin became a bigger problem than the risks of a fork or larger blocks. You cannot govern a decentralized currency with a centralized entity. That's why we shouldn't fear hard forks - they are the new reality, and if we cannot set up a reliable process for them to happen then there _is_ no decentralized Bitcoin and we all might as well just give up and go home. ---- And that's why it would be nice to have a more complex voting mechanism in the block header (see this proposal for the new header format, for example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1151698) and other initiatives to make forking more reliable and user choice easier. This is a better path than trying to suppress all forks by dictatorship methods of the few currently in power.