From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YyL9p-0000CC-Ff for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 29 May 2015 14:21:09 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.170; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f170.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YyL9o-0002VK-LA for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 29 May 2015 14:21:09 +0000 Received: by wicmc15 with SMTP id mc15so17472923wic.1 for ; Fri, 29 May 2015 07:21:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.157.168 with SMTP id wn8mr15393236wjb.79.1432909262653; Fri, 29 May 2015 07:21:02 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.143.9 with HTTP; Fri, 29 May 2015 07:21:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator> Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 16:21:02 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: pQH3XEWqlEodTKBMnvnkzV21eiY Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Tier Nolan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122e968988fcf0517392fd4 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1YyL9o-0002VK-LA Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function 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: Fri, 29 May 2015 14:21:09 -0000 --089e0122e968988fcf0517392fd4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > The measure is miner consensus. How do you intend to measure > exchange/merchant acceptance? > Asking them. In fact, we already have. I have been talking to well known people and CEOs in the Bitcoin community for some time now. *All* of them support bigger blocks, this includes: - Every wallet developer I have asked (other than Bitcoin Core) - So far, every payment processor and every exchange company I know Gavin has also been talking to people about this. There's a feeling on this list that there's no consensus, or that Gavin and myself are on the wrong side of it. I'd put it differently - there's very strong consensus out in the wider community and this list is something of an aberration. --089e0122e968988fcf0517392fd4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The measure is miner consensus.=C2=A0 How do yo= u intend to measure exchange/merchant acceptance?

Asking them.

In= fact, we already have. I have been talking to well known people and CEOs i= n the Bitcoin community for some time now. All=C2=A0of them support = bigger blocks, this includes:
  • Every wallet developer I ha= ve asked (other than Bitcoin Core)
  • So far, every payment processor = and every exchange company
I know Gavin has also been talking= to people about this.

There's a feeling= on this list that there's no consensus, or that Gavin and myself are o= n the wrong side of it. I'd put it differently - there's very stron= g consensus out in the wider community and this list is something of an abe= rration.
--089e0122e968988fcf0517392fd4--