rich1.0npub1ac86vemj7ce5z8jyxt39rna3tvwql6xd30ha3vxcd6esysp23d9qrlswfjhttps://nostr.ae/npub1ac86vemj7ce5z8jyxt39rna3tvwql6xd30ha3vxcd6esysp23d9qrlswfjnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-01 📝 Original message:Agree with everything you said. Spot on observations on all counts. Thank you for speaking up. Adam On 1 June 2015 at 13:45, Jérôme Legoupil <jjlegoupil at gmail.com> wrote: >>What do other people think? >> >> >>If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help >>reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement a >>big increase now that grows over time so we may never have to go through >>all this rancor and debate again." >> >> >>I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges and >>hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure companies > > > It's surprising to see a core dev going to the public to defend a proposal > most other core devs disagree on, and then lobbying the Bitcoin ecosystem. > > This is an very unhealthy way to go because it incentives the other core > devs to stop their technical work and go public and lobby too (cf G.Maxwell > trying to raise redditters awareness). > > We need core devs to work on technical issues, not waste time doing > politics, but Gavin's confrontational approach doesn't give them much of a > choice. > > I fear that because of this approach, in the next monthes, core devs with be > lobbying and doing politics : precious time will be wasted for everyone > having stake in Bitcoin. > > > Regarding the 20MB proposal content: > > Decentralization is the core of Bitcoin's security model and thus that's > what gives Bitcoin its value. > > The danger is that decentralization tends naturally towards centralization, > because centralization is more efficient. Going from decentralization to > centralization is easy, going the other way is a lot harder : > decentralization we lose, may never be gained back. > > Regarding "the urgency to do something": > > I believe it would be extremely healthy for the network to bump into any > limit ASAP ... (let it be 1MB) : to incentive layer 2 and offchain solutions > to scale Bitcoin : there are promising designs/solutions out there (LN, > ChainDB, OtherCoin protocole, ...), but most don't get much attention, > because there is right now no need for them. And, I am sure new solutions > will be invented. > > If during the "1MB bumpy period" something goes wrong, consensus among the > community would be reached easily if necessary. > > Pretending there is urgency and that Apocalypse is approaching is a fallacy. > > The Gavin 20MB proposal is compromising Bitcoin's long-term security in an > irreversible way, for gaining short-term better user experience. > > I oppose the Gavin proposal in both content and form. > > Cheers, > Jerome > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >