Doing nothing is the rules we all agreed to. If those rules are to be changed,nearly everyone will need to consent. The same rule applies to the cap, we all agreed to 21m, and if someone wants to change that, nearly everyone would need to agree.
On Feb 8, 2017 10:28 AM, "Andrew Johnson" <andrew.johnso...@gmail.com> wrote: It is when you're talking about making a choice and 6.3x more people prefer something else. Doing nothing is a choice as well. Put another way, if 10% supported increasing the 21M coin cap and 63% were against, would you seriously consider doing it? On Feb 8, 2017 9:57 AM, "alp alp" <alp.bitc...@gmail.com> wrote: > 10% is not a tiny minority. > > On Feb 8, 2017 9:51 AM, "Andrew Johnson" <andrew.johnso...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> You're never going to reach 100% agreement, and stifling the network >> literally forever to please a tiny minority is daft. >> >> On Feb 8, 2017 8:52 AM, "alp alp via bitcoin-dev" < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> 10% say literally never. That seems like a significant >> disenfranchisement and lack of consensus. >> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, t. khan via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr <l...@dashjr.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Monday, February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote: >>>> > >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any >>>> block >>>> > >size increase hardfork ever. >>>> > >>>> > Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how >>>> did you >>>> > come to this conclusion? >>>> >>>> http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r >>> >>> >>> That poll shows 63% of votes want a larger than 1 MB block by this >>> summer. How do you go from that to "the community opposes any block >>> increase ever"? It shows the exact opposite of that. >>> >>> >>>> > >Your version doesn't address the current block size >>>> > >issues (ie, the blocks being too large). >>>> > >>>> > Why do you think blocks are "too large"? Please cite some evidence. >>>> I've >>>> > asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful >>>> to the >>>> > discussion. >>>> >>>> Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of economic >>>> activity. >>>> >>> >>> Is this causing a problem now? If so, what? >>> >>> >>>> Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves come >>>> down >>>> to the high resource requirements caused by the block size. >>> >>> >>> The reason people stop running nodes is because there's no incentive to >>> counteract the resource costs. Attempting to solve this by making blocks >>> *smaller* is like curing a disease by killing the patient. (Incentivizing >>> full node operation would fix that problem.) >>> >>> - t.k. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> >>
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
