Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

[Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1688 bytes --]

That's exactly the point: a hard fork does not just affect miners, and
cannot just get decided by miners. All full nodes must have accepted the
new rules, or they will be forked off when the hashrate percentage triggers.

Furthermore, 75% is pretty terrible as a switchover point, as it guarantees
that old nodes will still see a 25% forked off chain temporarily.

My opinion is that the role of Bitcoin Core maintainers is judging whether
consensus for a hard fork exists, and is technically necessary and safe. We
don't need a hashpower vote to decide whether a hardfork is accepted or
not, we need to be sure that full noded will accept it, and adopt it in
time. A hashpower vote can still be used to be sure that miners _also_
agree.

Currently, a large amount of developers and others believe that the
treshhold for a hardfork is not reached, especially given the fact that we
scale in the short term, as well as make many changes that long-term
benefit scalability, with just a softfork (which does not require forking
off nodes that don't adopt the new rules, for whatever reason).

-- 
Pieter
On Dec 26, 2015 17:25, "digitsu" <jerry.d.chan@bittoku.co.jp> wrote:

> So it seems that everyone is in agreement then, since a hard fork to 2M is
> orthogonal to SW, and also that core should not be involved in dictating
> what the consensus rules should be, then why not put BIP102 into play with
> a 75% mining majority activation and let the market decide.
>
> As it’s activation only involves the miners, and its implementation
> doesn’t affect users or exchanges, then it poses no complication to SW
> which can do done in parallel.
>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2004 bytes --]