If Bitcoin is a $3bn project where stakeholder interests are to be safeguarded, or if Bitcoin is to be compared to a civil engineering project where life and death is at stake, it seems only logical that a well-defined and well-documented process be introduced to properly evaluate proposed changes. Although too late for the block size debate, it seems odd that discussion of such a process is often dismissed out of hand.
To maintain the current approach of supermajority consensus, based around ingrained wisdom, personal preference and unwritten rules would suggest that Bitcoin is still an experiment, in which case perhaps any decision regarding the block size should be based upon technical merit alone rather than economic interest. --Simon > You're the one proposing a change here; we're evaluating the safety of that change. > In civil engineering we have enough experience with disasters to know > that you can't give into political pressure to do potentially dangerous > things until the consequences are well understood; hopefully we'll learn > that in the consensus cryptography space before a big disaster rather > than after. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
