{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-05-29\n📝 Original message:On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e But if there is still no consensus among developers but the \"bigger blocks\n\u003e now\" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to do the\n\u003e same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (hopefully)\n\u003e get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger blocks.\n\u003e The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they'd better\n\u003e start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them\n\u003e a chance to upgrade before that happens.\n\u003e\n\nHow do you define that the movement is successful?\n\nFor\n\n\n\u003e Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for\n\u003e determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges\n\u003e and miners are running.\n\u003e\n\nThe measure is miner consensus.  How do you intend to measure\nexchange/merchant acceptance?\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150529/84672694/attachment.html\u003e"}