rich1.0npub13aunkws5nhdv85pnj6swqc2zrfpljn3q4mz92thskgsyum0qle0saykfmhhttps://nostr.ae/npub13aunkws5nhdv85pnj6swqc2zrfpljn3q4mz92thskgsyum0qle0saykfmhnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-05-29 📝 Original message:How is this being pigheaded? In my opinion, this is leadership. If *something* isn't implemented soon, the network is going to have some real problems, right at the time when adoption is starting to accelerate. I've been seeing nothing but navel-gazing and circlejerks on this issue for weeks now. Gavin or Mike or someone at some point needs to step up and say "follow me". Braun Brelin On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:00 PM, <insecurity at national.shitposting.agency> wrote: > Are you really that pig headed that you are going to try and blow up the > entire system just to get your way? A bunch of ignorant redditors do not > make consensus, mercifully. > > > On 2015-05-29 12:39, Gavin Andresen 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 (and anybody who agrees with me that we need bigger blocks > > sooner rather than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core, > > and state that they are running it. We'll be able to see uptake on the > > network by monitoring client versions. > > > > Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consensus bigger blocks > > are needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The early > > deployment will just serve as early testing, and all of the software > > already deployed will ready for bigger blocks. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > -- > > > > -- > > Gavin Andresen > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bitcoin-development mailing list > > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150529/6353ffbd/attachment.html>