On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 09:37:06PM +0300, Santino Napolitano wrote: > I disagree. I think all client-side adoption of SW reliably tells you is that > those implementers saw value in it greater than the cost of implementation. > It's possible what they valued was the malleability fix and didn't see the > limited potential circumvention of MAX_BLOCK_SIZE material to their decision. > > They could just as easily attach an OP_RETURN output to all of their > transactions which pushes "big blocks please" which would more directly > indicate their preference for larger blocks. You could also let hand-signed > letters from the heads of businesses explicitly stating their desire speak > for their intentions vs. any of this nonsense. Or the media interviews, forum > comments, tweets, etc...
Note that English-language measures of Bitcoin usage/activity are very misleading, as a significant - probably super majority - of economnic activity happens outside the English language, Western world. Centralized forums such as twitter and reddit are easily censored and manipulated. Finally, we can't discount the significant amount of non-law-abiding Bitcoin economic activity that does happen, and I do not believe we should adopt consensus-building processes that shut those stakeholders out of the discussion. As an aside, I have a friend of mine who made a Bitcoin related product with non-culturally-specific appeal. I asked where she was shipping her product, and it turned out that a super majority went to non-English-speaking countries. (she might be willing to go on public record about this; I can ask) -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000188b6321da7feae60d74c7b0becbdab3b1a0bd57f10947d
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
