Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 14:25:43 +0200
From: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: NxtChg <nxtchg@hush.com>
Message-ID: <20150627122543.GE25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjOj9eXiDG0F6G54SVKkStF_1HRu2wzGqtFF5X_NAWy4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<CABm2gDr3orTHMN1q8vGmy3NpXWPy5i=zHhGneDGUk=ney3-e+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150627120935.GD25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<20150627121505.6E857417EC@smtp.hushmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150627121505.6E857417EC@smtp.hushmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
Precedence: list


> It was pointed several times before that with enough loud minority you can make any change seem controversial.

Yes, absolutely. Pushing something through despite a loud miniority (certainly a well-informed one with valid reasons) is controversial.

This is not about miniorities and majorities. The *entire network* needs to agree to switch to your new software. If there are months-long heated discussions on every possible forum that is a clear sign that your change is controversial. As Greg Sanders already says, we know one when we see one...

Wladimir