Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:04:01 +0200
From: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: NxtChg <nxtchg@hush.com>
Message-ID: <20150627100400.GC25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjOj9eXiDG0F6G54SVKkStF_1HRu2wzGqtFF5X_NAWy4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<20150627095501.C59B541A40@smtp.hushmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150627095501.C59B541A40@smtp.hushmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
Precedence: list

On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 12:55:01PM +0300, NxtChg wrote:
> 
> > They cannot be changed willy-nilly according to needs of some groups, much less than lower gravity can be legislated to help the airline industry.
> 
> Except the block size is not gravity. It's more like an arbitrary decision to limit planes' wingspan to the most typical hangar door of 1940.
> 
> And now we have a "controversy" that we can't have modern planes out of the fear they won't fit into some of the old hangars. 
> 
> And to continue with this nice example, some people are even arguing that "the demand for flight is, essentially, limitless, so why bother making larger jets at all?"

At least there's always an 'exit' option. At this point it would be more realistic to create a sidechain, or altcoin with larger blocks, and not experiment with the current one in-flight. Then you won't risk the other 'passengers' who don't consent to it.

It's important to face reality instead of being wishful here. I'd also have preferred to have one happy family, but it is clear that is not the case, and pretending is only going to cause damage by creating false expectations, or eventually even double-spending possibility because of conflicting forks.

Wladimir