{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-12-16\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Jeff Garzik \u003cjgarzik at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e You present this as if the Bitcoin Core development team is in charge\n\u003e\u003e of deciding the network consensus rules, and is responsible for making\n\u003e\u003e changes to it in order to satisfy economic demand. If that is the\n\u003e\u003e case, Bitcoin has failed, in my opinion.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e This circles back to Problem #1:   Avoidance of a choice is a still a choice\n\u003e - failing to ACK a MAX_BLOCK_SIZE increase still creates very real Economic\n\u003e Change Event risk.\n\nWe are not avoiding a choice. We don't have the authority to make a choice.\n\n\u003e And #3:  If the likely predicted course is that Bitcoin Core will not accept\n\u003e a protocol change changing MAX_BLOCK_SIZE via hard fork in the short term,\n\u003e the core dev team should communicate that position clearly to users and\n\u003e media.\n\nI indeed think we can communicate much better that deciding consensus\nrules is not within our power.\n\n-- \nPieter"}