Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP

Agreed, this thread is venturing somewhat out of scope for the list. Please can we redirect philosophical discussion to another forum/list such as bitcoin-discuss, which can be found at https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-discuss Repost of the bitcoin-dev posting guidelines

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP

Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP Message-ID:

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP

If a small dissenting minority can block all forward progress then bitcoin is no longer interesting. What an incredibly simple attack vector... No need to break any cryptography, find a bug to exploit, build tens of millions of dollars in mining hardware, spend lots of bitcoin on fees to flood

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP

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"

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP

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"

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP

10% is not a tiny minority. On Feb 8, 2017 9:51 AM, "Andrew Johnson" 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"

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP

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 wrote: > >> On Monday,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr 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?

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP

I looked at the discussions about the block size and about Luke-Jr's proposal on Reddit and Bitcointalk. From what I observed of all of the discussions is that few users are in favor of the status quo, and even fewer are in favor of decreasing the block size. The majority of users favored Segwit

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP

On 2/5/2017 6:02 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any block > size > increase hardfork ever. >From what I have observed, it seems to be that people are more so opposed to a hard fork when there is a comparable soft fork available than

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP

My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any block size increase hardfork ever. Your version doesn't address the current block size issues (ie, the blocks being too large). So you've retained the only certain- DOA parts of my proposal, and removed the most useful part...