{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub10z4xjfgftd3fm9dfu7dw6mkemgyhxgumcmhd7yd0ggjq7rsaw4wqa3xfzw","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub10z4xjfgftd3fm9dfu7dw6mkemgyhxgumcmhd7yd0ggjq7rsaw4wqa3xfzw","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18\n📝 Original message:Not that I know how to do this, but would you be willing to attempt some\nother method of measuring just how much of a \"super-majority\" we have\nbefore deploying code?  Maybe that information would be helpful for\neveryone.  Obviously such a poll couldn't be perfect, but maybe better than\nthe information we have now.\n\nA) I don't believe we should consider changing the 1 MB limit now\nB) I conceptually believe in increasing block size, but would like to\nfollow a more conservative process and wait to see if a stronger technical\nconsensus on a plan to do so can develop.\nC) I'd like to go along with Gavin and Mike's 8MB proposal (maybe we wait\ntil this is fully specified, but again not deployed)\n\nPerhaps there can even be 4 polls:\nMiners can vote in coinbases\nKnown corporate entities can announce their vote\nDoes the Bitcoin Foundation infrastructure still exist to represent some\nauthenticated (I think) set of individuals\nA reddit poll\n\nI don't even know if I think this is a good idea, but just trying to find a\nway to move forward where more of us are on the same page.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Alex Morcos \u003cmorcos at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Let me take a pass at explaining how I see this.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 1) Code changes to Bitcoin Core that don't change consensus:  Wladimir is\n\u003e\u003e the decider but he works under a process that is well understood by\n\u003e\u003e developers on the project in which he takes under reasonable consideration\n\u003e\u003e other technical opinions and prefers to have clear agreement among them.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Yes.\n\u003e\n\u003e 2) Changes to the consensus rules: As others have said, this isn't\n\u003e\u003e anyone's decision for anyone else.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Yes.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e It's up to each individual user as to what code they run and what rules\n\u003e\u003e they enforce.  So then why is everyone so up in arms about what Mike and\n\u003e\u003e Gavin are proposing if everyone is free to decide for themselves?  I\n\u003e\u003e believe that each individual user should adhere to the principle that there\n\u003e\u003e should be no changes to the consensus rules unless there is near complete\n\u003e\u003e agreement among the entire community, users, developers, businesses miners\n\u003e\u003e etc. It is not necessary to define complete agreement exactly because every\n\u003e\u003e individual person decides for themselves.  I believe that this is what\n\u003e\u003e gives Bitcoin, or really any money, its value and what makes it work, that\n\u003e\u003e we all agree on exactly what it is.  So I believe that it is misleading and\n\u003e\u003e bad for Bitcoin to tell users and business that you can just choose without\n\u003e\u003e concern for everyone else which code you'll run and we'll see which one\n\u003e\u003e wins out.  No.  You should run the old consensus rules (on any codebase you\n\u003e\u003e want) until you believe that pretty much everyone has consented to a change\n\u003e\u003e in the rules.  It is your choice, but I think a lot of people that have\n\u003e\u003e spent time thinking about the philosophy of consensus systems believe that\n\u003e\u003e when the users of the system have this principle in mind, it's what will\n\u003e\u003e make the system work best.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e I don't think I agree with \"pretty much everybody\", because status-quo\n\u003e bias is a very powerful thing. Any change that disrupts the way they've\n\u003e been doing things will generate significant resistance -- there will be 10\n\u003e or 20% of any population that will take a position of \"too busy to think\n\u003e about this, everything seems to be working great, I don't like change, NO\n\u003e to any change.\"\n\u003e\n\u003e For example, I think some of the resistance for bigger blocks is coming\n\u003e from contributors who are worried they, personally, won't be able to keep\n\u003e up with a bigger blockchain. They might not be able to run full nodes from\n\u003e their home network connections (or might not be able to run a full node AND\n\u003e stream Game of Thrones), on their old raspberry pi machines.\n\u003e\n\u003e The criteria for me is \"clear super-majority of the people and businesses\n\u003e who are using Bitcoin the most,\" and I think that criteria is met.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 3) Code changes to Core that do change consensus: I think that Wladimir,\n\u003e\u003e all the other committers besides Gavin, and almost all of the other\n\u003e\u003e developers on Core would defer to #2 above and wait for its outcome to be\n\u003e\u003e clear before considering such a code change.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Yes, that's the way it has mostly been working. But even before stepping\n\u003e down as Lead I was starting to wonder if there are ANY successful open\n\u003e source projects that didn't have either a Benevolent Dictator or some clear\n\u003e voting process to resolve disputes that cannot be settled with \"rough\n\u003e consensus.\"\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e --\n\u003e Gavin Andresen\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150618/a6d09f1f/attachment.html\u003e"}