MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:10:15 +0300
To: "=?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?=" <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
From: "NxtChg" <nxtchg@hush.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDpnzjph5SKTf+8GWgwe+njS=k2GNm9uL73RC-EV=Y5wug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjOj9eXiDG0F6G54SVKkStF_1HRu2wzGqtFF5X_NAWy4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<20150627095501.C59B541A40@smtp.hushmail.com>
	<20150627100400.GC25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<20150627102912.06E2641A3E@smtp.hushmail.com>
	<CABm2gDpnzjph5SKTf+8GWgwe+njS=k2GNm9uL73RC-EV=Y5wug@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20150627121016.2360041A3E@smtp.hushmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
Precedence: list


On 6/27/2015 at 2:04 PM, "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:

>But that option is not unknown...

It is, until it actually happens. Before that, anything is a speculation. That's why risk is attached to both "doing nothing" and "raising the limit".

For example, there's another risk that a lot of people will be disappointed in a system that can't scale (or adapt to any significant changes, for that matter).

Yes, there is the "exit" option, but that path would probably be a lot messier and unwarranted.

Various people perceive these risks differently and there is no clear mechanism currently to somehow gauge what the majority wants. So it's tempting to just give up and say: let's do nothing.

In this situation, doing a "software fork" seems like the only way to actually see how many people/interests are in favor of bigger blocks.

(Whether the majority has a moral right to dictate the minority is a tough philosophical question, which should probably be left out of this discussion :)