On May 28, 2015 10:42 AM, "Raystonn ." <raystonn@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree that developers should avoid imposing economic policy.  It is dangerous for Bitcoin and the core developers themselves to become such a central point of attack for those wishing to disrupt Bitcoin. 

I could not agree more that developers should not be in charge of the network rules.

Which is why - in my opinion - hard forks cannot be controversial things. A controversial change to the software, forced to be adopted by the public because the only alternative is a permanent chain fork, is a use of power that developers (or anyone) should not have, and an incredibly dangerous precedent for other changes that only a subset of participants would want.

The block size is also not just an economic policy. It is the compromise the _network_ chooses to make between utility and various forms of centralization pressure, and we should treat it as a compromise, and not as some limit that is inferior to scaling demands.

I personally think the block size should increase, by the way, but only if we can do it under a policy of doing it after technological growth has been shown to be sufficient to support it without increased risk.

--
Pieter