Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.180 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.180; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f180.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <COL131-DS24FC87C7C6622E23F5EF58CDCA0@phx.gbl>
References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator>
	<CABsx9T3-zxCAagAS0megd06xvG5n-3tUL9NUK9TT3vt7XNL9Tg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP3VCaFsW4+gPm2kCJ9z7oVUZYVaeNf=_cJWEWwh4ZxiPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T21zjHyO-nh1aSBM3z4Bg015O0rOfYq7=Sy4mf=QxUVQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<COL131-DS24FC87C7C6622E23F5EF58CDCA0@phx.gbl>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 10:59:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBhuHrMHZym8xQ2-dMknR4zdM=ZULcnZ-fcGnKLserDd-A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Raystonn <raystonn@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6767c8f320ca0517281da7
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB
	stepfunction
Precedence: list

--047d7b6767c8f320ca0517281da7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On May 28, 2015 10:42 AM, "Raystonn ." <raystonn@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree that developers should avoid imposing economic policy.  It is
dangerous for Bitcoin and the core developers themselves to become such a
central point of attack for those wishing to disrupt Bitcoin.

I could not agree more that developers should not be in charge of the
network rules.

Which is why - in my opinion - hard forks cannot be controversial things. A
controversial change to the software, forced to be adopted by the public
because the only alternative is a permanent chain fork, is a use of power
that developers (or anyone) should not have, and an incredibly dangerous
precedent for other changes that only a subset of participants would want.

The block size is also not just an economic policy. It is the compromise
the _network_ chooses to make between utility and various forms of
centralization pressure, and we should treat it as a compromise, and not as
some limit that is inferior to scaling demands.

I personally think the block size should increase, by the way, but only if
we can do it under a policy of doing it after technological growth has been
shown to be sufficient to support it without increased risk.

-- 
Pieter

--047d7b6767c8f320ca0517281da7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On May 28, 2015 10:42 AM, &quot;Raystonn .&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:rays=
tonn@hotmail.com">raystonn@hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I agree that developers should avoid imposing economic policy.=C2=A0 I=
t is dangerous for Bitcoin and the core developers themselves to become suc=
h a central point of attack for those wishing to disrupt Bitcoin.=C2=A0</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I could not agree more that developers should not be in char=
ge of the network rules.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Which is why - in my opinion - hard forks cannot be controve=
rsial things. A controversial change to the software, forced to be adopted =
by the public because the only alternative is a permanent chain fork, is a =
use of power that developers (or anyone) should not have, and an incredibly=
 dangerous precedent for other changes that only a subset of participants w=
ould want.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">The block size is also not just an economic policy. It is th=
e compromise the _network_ chooses to make between utility and various form=
s of centralization pressure, and we should treat it as a compromise, and n=
ot as some limit that is inferior to scaling demands.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I personally think the block size should increase, by the wa=
y, but only if we can do it under a policy of doing it after technological =
growth has been shown to be sufficient to support it without increased risk=
.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">-- <br>
Pieter<br>
</p>

--047d7b6767c8f320ca0517281da7--