> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombr...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:elombr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences…and particularly for miners. It 
> lends itself to much greater corruptibility.
> What is the alternative?  Have a Chief Scientist or Technical Advisory Board 
> choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of decentralization, a 
> proper growth factor?

> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:36 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgar...@bitpay.com> wrote:
> The choice is very real and on-point.  What should the block size limit be?  
> Why?
> There is a large consensus that it needs increasing.  To what?  By what 
> factor?

To be clear, Jeff, I am 100% in agreement with you that a mechanism like what 
you’re proposing is a million times better than having high priests that ram 
hard forks without proper consensus. And perhaps given the present 
circumstances it seems like the only alternative. However, in my mind this 
block size limit controversy is actually a fairly superficial aspect - a mere 
symptom, a manifestation of the real problem...

What I find somewhat irksome is that we’ve had six years to figure out a 
mechanism to enable hard forks (which we knew from the start would be 
inevitable) - and more to the point, we’ve known about this block size issue 
from the start as well…and only suddenly it becomes an issue of major urgency 
that we must bump up this parameter 20x…

- Eric Lombrozo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to