MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:50:09 +0300
To: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail.com>
From: "NxtChg" <nxtchg@hush.com>
In-Reply-To: <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>
	<20150627122543.GE25420@amethyst.visucore.com> 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20150627125010.2B57E41A3F@smtp.hushmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
Precedence: list

Greg,

> But it's a strange bar to set: perfect representation of entire community. By that token, nobody can say anything is controversial if a different group is disagreeing.

Sorry, for not being clear. I am not talking definitions here, of course you can call it "controversial" when you get N-1 NACK's!

I object that it's enough evidence to deny any change (see below). For example, in case the interests of developers became misaligned with the interests of the community (you can't say it can't happen).


Wladimir,

>The *entire network* needs to agree to switch to your new software.

Why the "entire network"? So if, say, 75% of everybody involved want some change and 25% don't, the majority can't have it?

Well, I guess we're down to that philosophical question of whether majority can dictate minority or whether minority can be a roadblock to majority :)

Probably no reason to discuss it further :) A "software fork" seems like an inevitable resolution for this.