From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z4Fbq-0000lX-Ix for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 21:38:30 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of riseup.net designates 198.252.153.129 as permitted sender) client-ip=198.252.153.129; envelope-from=odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net; helo=mx1.riseup.net; Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z4Fbo-0006a8-VK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 21:38:30 +0000 Received: from berryeater.riseup.net (berryeater-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0E9340E94; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 21:38:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla) with ESMTPSA id 987293F632 Message-ID: <557DF44D.90009@riseup.net> Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:38:21 -0700 From: odinn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aaron Voisine References: <557D02F4.7090001@riseup.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mx1 X-Virus-Status: Clean Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [198.252.153.129 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines 0.2 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z4Fbo-0006a8-VK Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] User vote in blocksize through fees X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 21:38:30 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I agree that changes of anything more than trivial are difficult, but I would disagree that they can't be made. It seems that the issue is one of roadblocks and muddling through when a major issue (e.g. the proposal of a hardfork / XT) is confronting the community and the question of how to address this issue in a timely manner. That does not mean that there isn't a process for the community to weigh in or for the decisions of the participants in the network to be measured because, of course, there is, but I submit that the larger issues are having to do with concerns over the problems inherent in the totally unnecessary XT proposal itself. My own thoughts on that proposal are written up at http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1smkanp And have been supported somewhat by various others in the community, such as GreenAddress (which is opposed at this time to increasing the blocksize limit as per Gavin's proposal) and Adam Back: https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/608920099609817088 I think Jeff Garzik had some good thoughts specifically regarding this subject of user vote in blocksize through fees. Although I do agree with you, Aaron, that the "changes more than trivial" are a tough nut to crack, I won't say that they can't be made in such processes and I am curious to see how this discussion progresses. - -O On 06/13/2015 10:46 PM, Aaron Voisine wrote: > Yes, it does bother (some) people to see the consensus based > system because of the difficulties that can be associated with > implementing it. But that's the way it is. If you don't like > consensus based systems (or decentralized, distributed systems) > this is probably the wrong space for you. >=20 >=20 > If consensus must be reached to make any changes, that just means > that changes of anything more than trivial consequence simply can't > be made. Extreme bias toward the status-quo will only work if > external factors affecting the network also remain static. >=20 > Aaron Voisine co-founder and CEO breadwallet.com > - --=20 http://abis.io ~ "a protocol concept to enable decentralization and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good" https://keybase.io/odinn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVffRMAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CGfIH/RkMNeJpcXdG+pC6Cg1XMELQ wa/fkdKnnkhhxNm4keHeO0YQFw0BL4rQSQ2PfGEXU3keJrWlmxchEQteAGDzL55Y 1dSkQbfxsaEco2m6P0/1+WGuNOn2Sp653+/G/WoeaqMvp+b2ORbVZoqURv7Iz240 sI6GqWxWxuGpJyaW/PwVYfvGAImeQRKgKiB3w001Q3Lc36wDr/EGs4lVWJTSk+g+ 60zj4+7jmqpr/Q/+sjQDE0KZSBU/EmrPYEuEdBkOmG4JnFgBqM7civtHis/zu7Uc 1sr/LcqeGm0VB/yt0CfvtsAC5KZyMFQABF0/Q2qX0GtuLbjyKWf7B/KEAPdC+m0=3D =3D3cf3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----