Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks

[Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1172 bytes --]

This is a hard fork. It is not about miners, at all. 2013 showed that when
there is true consensus mining can be coordinated on the order of hours or
days. This is about pushing through a coercive change to the
decentralization tradeoffs of bitcoin without unanimous consent.
On Jun 26, 2015 12:03 PM, "Tier Nolan" <tier.nolan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Patrick Strateman <
> patrick.strateman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  For a proposed hard fork to reach a level of consensus necessary to be
>> safe requires that there be a clear and self evident course of action.
>>
>
> Safety increases with more lead-in time.  If the reference client was
> updated so that the hard fork happened in two years, it would be pretty
> safe.  Miners would have time to update.
>
> If miners (or the community) objected, it is sort of like a game of
> chicken.
>
> This is one of the problems with not making decisions in advance, the
> resulting hard fork is inherently safer.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2008 bytes --]