{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-05-07\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e If his explanation was \"I will change my mind after we increase block\n\u003e\nsize\", I guess the community should say \"then we will just ignore your\n\u003e nack because it makes no sense\".\n\u003e\n\nOh good! We can just kick anyone out of the consensus process if we think\nthey make no sense.\n\nI guess that means me and Gavin can remove everyone else from the developer\nconsensus, because we think trying to stop Bitcoin growing makes no sense.\n\nDo you see the problem with this whole notion? It cannot possibly work.\nWhenever you try and make the idea of developer consensus work, what you\nend up with is \"I believe in consensus as long as it goes my way\". Which is\nworthless.\n\n\n\u003e One thing is the Bitcoin core project where you could argue that the 5\n\u003e committers decide (I don't know why Wladimir would have any more\n\u003e authority than the others).\n\u003e\n\nBecause he is formally the maintainer.\n\nMaybe you dislike that idea. It's so .... centralised. So let's say Gavin\ncommits his patch, because his authority is equal to all other committers.\nSomeone else rolls it back. Gavin sets up a cron job to keep committing the\npatch. Game over.\n\nYou cannot have committers fighting over what goes in and what doesn't.\nThat's madness. There must be a single decision maker for any given\ncodebase.\n\n\n\u003e Ok, so in simple terms, you expect people to have to pay enormous fees\n\u003e and/or wait thousands of blocks for their transactions to get included\n\u003e in the chain. Is that correct?\n\u003e\n\nNo. I'll write an article like the others, it's better than email for more\ncomplicated discourse.\n\nAs others have said, if the answer is \"forever, adoption is always the most\n\u003e important thing\" then we will end up with an improved version of Visa.\n\u003e\n\nThis appears to be another one of those fundamental areas of disagreement.\nI believe there is no chance of Bitcoin ending up like Visa, even if it is\nwildly successful. I did the calculations years ago that show that won't\nhappen:\n\n    https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability\n\nDecentralisation is a spectrum and Bitcoin will move around on that\nspectrum over time. But claiming we have to pick between 1mb blocks and\n\"Bitcoin = VISA\" is silly.\n\n\n\nPeter:   your hypocrisy really is bottomless, isn't it? You constantly\nclaim to be a Righteous Defender of Privacy, but don't even hesitate before\npublishing hacked private emails when it suits you.\n\nSatoshi's hacker had no illusions about your horrible personality, which is\nwhy he forwarded that email to you specifically. He knew you'd use it. You\nshould reflect on that fact. It says nothing good about you at all.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150507/2785795e/attachment.html\u003e"}