Message-ID: <558DCF2F.5080305@bitcartel.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:16:15 -0700
From: Simon Liu <simon@bitcartel.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T2HegqOBqd1jijk1bZBE6N+NH8x6nfwbaoLBACVf8-WBQ@mail.gmail.com>	<20150623192838.GG30235@muck>	<CABsx9T2wsc=+seaWs=v5d_kPpC4u-xTnsjuPMO7PYhQN+0-KAQ@mail.gmail.com>	<20150623204646.GA18677@muck>	<CABsx9T3-CbB0k2aKMqRYseUQ2dfW9ANAuYb2MPAw1S+_bF7_=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150626192528.GC10387@muck>
In-Reply-To: <20150626192528.GC10387@muck>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase
Precedence: list

If Bitcoin is a $3bn project where stakeholder interests are to be
safeguarded, or if Bitcoin is to be compared to a civil engineering
project where life and death is at stake, it seems only logical that a
well-defined and well-documented process be introduced to properly
evaluate proposed changes.  Although too late for the block size debate,
it seems odd that discussion of such a process is often dismissed out of
hand.

To maintain the current approach of supermajority consensus, based
around ingrained wisdom, personal preference and unwritten rules would
suggest that Bitcoin is still an experiment, in which case perhaps any
decision regarding the block size should be based upon technical merit
alone rather than economic interest.

--Simon

> You're the one proposing a change here; we're evaluating the safety of
that change.

> In civil engineering we have enough experience with disasters to know
> that you can't give into political pressure to do potentially dangerous
> things until the consequences are well understood; hopefully we'll learn
> that in the consensus cryptography space before a big disaster rather
> than after.