Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1U5eTT-0006L1-Di for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:42:20 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.47; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f47.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f47.google.com ([209.85.215.47]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1U5eTO-00022D-08 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:42:19 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id fj20so1281771lab.6 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:42:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.26.10 with SMTP id h10mr9029109lbg.63.1360770127307; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:42:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.96.164 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:42:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:42:07 -0800 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Raph Frank Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1U5eTO-00022D-08 Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Incorporating block validation rule modifications into the block chain X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:42:20 -0000 On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Raph Frank wrote: >> Bitcoin is not a democracy=E2=80=94 it quite intentionally uses the cons= ensus >> mechanism _only_ the one thing that nodes can not autonomously and >> interdependently validate (the ordering of transactions). > So, how is max block size to be decided then? In one sense it already is decided=E2=80=94 there is a protocol rule implementing a hard maximum, and soft rules for lower targets. If it's to be changed it would only be by it being obvious to almost everyone that it should _and_ must be. Since, in the long run, Bitcoin can't meet its security and decenteralization promises without blockspace scarcity to drive non-trivial fees and without scaling limits to keep it decenteralized=E2=80=94 it's not a change that could be m= ade more lightly than changing the supply of coin. I hope that should it become necessary to do so that correct path will be obvious to everyone, otherwise there is a grave risk of undermining the justification for the confidence in the immutability of any of the rules of the system.