rich1.0npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wdhttps://nostr.ae/npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wdnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-05-29 📝 Original message:On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote: > But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger blocks > now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to do the > same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (hopefully) > get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger blocks. > The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they'd better > start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them > a chance to upgrade before that happens. > How do you define that the movement is successful? For > Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for > determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges > and miners are running. > The measure is miner consensus. How do you intend to measure exchange/merchant acceptance? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150529/84672694/attachment.html>