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-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Yy25O-0005Hm-BW for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 28 May 2015 17:59:18 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.180; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f180.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f180.google.com ([209.85.214.180]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Yy25N-0002Kz-Is for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 28 May 2015 17:59:18 +0000 Received: by obbnx5 with SMTP id nx5so38921127obb.0 for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:59:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.82.97 with SMTP id h1mr3568789oey.71.1432835952154; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:59:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.94.36 with HTTP; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.94.36 with HTTP; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:59:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator> Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 10:59:11 -0700 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Raystonn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6767c8f320ca0517281da7 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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: 1Yy25N-0002Kz-Is Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB stepfunction 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: Thu, 28 May 2015 17:59:18 -0000 --047d7b6767c8f320ca0517281da7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On May 28, 2015 10:42 AM, "Raystonn ." 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 --047d7b6767c8f320ca0517281da7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On May 28, 2015 10:42 AM, "Raystonn ." <raystonn@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree that developers should avoid imposing economic policy.=C2=A0 I= t is dangerous for Bitcoin and the core developers themselves to become suc= h a central point of attack for those wishing to disrupt Bitcoin.=C2=A0

I could not agree more that developers should not be in char= ge of the network rules.

Which is why - in my opinion - hard forks cannot be controve= rsial 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 w= ould want.

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

I personally think the block size should increase, by the wa= y, 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

--047d7b6767c8f320ca0517281da7--