Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of riseup.net
	designates 198.252.153.129 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=198.252.153.129;
	envelope-from=odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net;
	helo=mx1.riseup.net; 
Message-ID: <557DF44D.90009@riseup.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:38:21 -0700
From: odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com>
References: <COL402-EAS423BB81E15B25CD20B11B10CDBA0@phx.gbl>	<557D02F4.7090001@riseup.net>
	<CACq0ZD7FujgZ3huyu50+LG7FM2ayRoQz_6cukQMix6MDYpuC7g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACq0ZD7FujgZ3huyu50+LG7FM2ayRoQz_6cukQMix6MDYpuC7g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] User vote in blocksize through fees
Precedence: list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I agree that changes of anything more than trivial are difficult, but
I would disagree that they can't be made.  It seems that the issue is
one of roadblocks and muddling through when a major issue (e.g. the
proposal of a hardfork / XT) is confronting the community and the
question of how to address this issue in a timely manner. That does
not mean that there isn't a process for the community to weigh in or
for the decisions of the participants in the network to be measured
because, of course, there is, but I submit that the larger issues are
having to do with concerns over the problems inherent in the totally
unnecessary XT proposal itself.

My own thoughts on that proposal are written up at
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1smkanp

And have been supported somewhat by various others in the community,
such as GreenAddress (which is opposed at this time to increasing the
blocksize limit as per Gavin's proposal) and Adam Back:
https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/608920099609817088

I think Jeff Garzik had some good thoughts specifically regarding this
subject of user vote in blocksize through fees.  Although I do agree
with you, Aaron, that the "changes more than trivial" are a tough nut
to crack, I won't say that they can't be made in such processes and I
am curious to see how this discussion progresses.

- -O


On 06/13/2015 10:46 PM, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> Yes, it does bother (some) people to see the consensus based
> system because of the difficulties that can be associated with
> implementing it.  But that's the way it is.  If you don't like
> consensus based systems (or decentralized, distributed systems)
> this is probably the wrong space for you.
>=20
>=20
> If consensus must be reached to make any changes, that just means
> that changes of anything more than trivial consequence simply can't
> be made. Extreme bias toward the status-quo will only work if
> external factors affecting the network also remain static.
>=20
> Aaron Voisine co-founder and CEO breadwallet.com
> <http://breadwallet.com/>

- --=20
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVffRMAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CGfIH/RkMNeJpcXdG+pC6Cg1XMELQ
wa/fkdKnnkhhxNm4keHeO0YQFw0BL4rQSQ2PfGEXU3keJrWlmxchEQteAGDzL55Y
1dSkQbfxsaEco2m6P0/1+WGuNOn2Sp653+/G/WoeaqMvp+b2ORbVZoqURv7Iz240
sI6GqWxWxuGpJyaW/PwVYfvGAImeQRKgKiB3w001Q3Lc36wDr/EGs4lVWJTSk+g+
60zj4+7jmqpr/Q/+sjQDE0KZSBU/EmrPYEuEdBkOmG4JnFgBqM7civtHis/zu7Uc
1sr/LcqeGm0VB/yt0CfvtsAC5KZyMFQABF0/Q2qX0GtuLbjyKWf7B/KEAPdC+m0=3D
=3D3cf3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----