MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADm_Wcae7OK7kyXkfh+7XFrc2WYsv7T1Va3_E=5om+XYrL9pOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADm_WcasDuBsop55ZWcTb2FvccaoREg8K032rUjgQUQhQ3g=XA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBi=Mw7UnxG1-0-0ZTRqxrS5+28VmowyYrGP2MAvYiu_pA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_Wcae7OK7kyXkfh+7XFrc2WYsv7T1Va3_E=5om+XYrL9pOw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:11:52 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBimfFVea4Sorgx=DaMPVs1k1DrmTA2ZFdLFtxrqKm23-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation &
 moral hazard
Precedence: list

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You present this as if the Bitcoin Core development team is in charge
>> of deciding the network consensus rules, and is responsible for making
>> changes to it in order to satisfy economic demand. If that is the
>> case, Bitcoin has failed, in my opinion.
>
>
> This circles back to Problem #1:   Avoidance of a choice is a still a choice
> - failing to ACK a MAX_BLOCK_SIZE increase still creates very real Economic
> Change Event risk.

We are not avoiding a choice. We don't have the authority to make a choice.

> And #3:  If the likely predicted course is that Bitcoin Core will not accept
> a protocol change changing MAX_BLOCK_SIZE via hard fork in the short term,
> the core dev team should communicate that position clearly to users and
> media.

I indeed think we can communicate much better that deciding consensus
rules is not within our power.

-- 
Pieter