Even ignoring the obvious flaws of that poll, Andrew is still correct: you cannot reach 100% consensus. It's statistically impossible in any large group.
Only the majority needs to consent, though what is considered a majority varies depending on the context (95%, 75%, 51%). Nowhere does it say "everyone needs to agree". On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:16 PM, alp alp <alp.bitc...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
