{"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 3:53 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e 2) If block size stays at 1M, the Bitcoin Core developer team should sign a\n\u003e collective note stating their desire to transition to a new economic policy,\n\u003e that of \"healthy fee market\" and strongly urge users to examine their fee\n\u003e policies, wallet software, transaction volumes and other possible User\n\u003e impacting outcomes.\n\nYou present this as if the Bitcoin Core development team is in charge\nof deciding the network consensus rules, and is responsible for making\nchanges to it in order to satisfy economic demand. If that is the\ncase, Bitcoin has failed, in my opinion.\n\nWhat the Bitcoin Core team should do, in my opinion, is merge any\nconsensus change that is uncontroversial. We can certainly -\nindividually or not - propose solutions, and express opinions, but as\nfar as maintainers of the software goes our responsibility is keeping\nthe system running, and risking either a fork or establishing\nourselves as the de-facto central bank that can make any change to the\nsystem would greatly undermine the system's value.\n\nHard forking changes require that ultimately every participant in the\nsystem adopts the new rules. I find it immoral and dangerous to merge\nsuch a change without extremely widespread agreement. I am personally\nfine with a short-term small block size bump to kick the can down the\nroad if that is what the ecosystem desires, but I can only agree with\nmerging it in Core if I'm convinced that there is no strong opposition\nto it from others.\n\nSoft forks on the other hand only require a majority of miners to\naccept them, and everyone else can upgrade at their leisure or not at\nall. Yes, old full nodes after a soft fork are not able to fully\nvalidate the rules new miners enforce anymore, but they do still\nverify the rules that their operators opted to enforce. Furthermore,\nthey can't be prevented. For that reason, I've proposed, and am\nworking hard, on an approach that includes Segregated Witness as a\nfirst step. It shows the ecosystem that something is being done, it\nkicks the can down the road, it solves/issues half a dozen other\nissues at the same time, and it does not require the degree of\ncertainty needed for a hardfork.\n\n-- \nPieter"}