MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DA1298CE-1C3B-4153-A72D-A0F89D6F1833@mac.com>
References: <CAPg+sBgs-ouEMu=LOVCmOyCGwfM1Ygxooz0shyvAuHDGGZYfJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBgugLSVEwDLXhgey86_rM2fTjGWXFuXsiZioJKCZiHiNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcbnQQGZoQ92twfUvbzqGwu__xLn+BYOkHPZY_YT1pFrbA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPWm=eW8RgrG1CMEAMN4GeiMjZecFvNtZB_Y4rZNeofWSD0=Wg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcYCUHs9Qe_T6WJOCUSK6stXYD8v6z5JcGHfRMURoOSFTA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDq3JyZx0QCRDbcNSLSOBKdpi4h_7VN1XL8N42U38+eBAA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B113AF.40500@thinlink.com>
	<CABsx9T1MTc-GmuQyFN1vaFK=CDWV_L214Pi9nR6jLMouQQD0fw@mail.gmail.com>
	<trinity-f82ce2cb-7260-4b58-a577-9a1b6afad214-1437670245144@3capp-mailcom-bs02>
	<DA1298CE-1C3B-4153-A72D-A0F89D6F1833@mac.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 20:47:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDoGUZ2eC6Jogt6zA6vWOkqZyteb+kUYqs-E54PL=UEyiQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Robert Learney <robertlearney@mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks
Precedence: list

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Robert Learney via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> That=E2=80=99s not exactly what=E2=80=99s happened though, is it Cipher? =
Gavin put forward
> 20Mb then after analysis and discussion has moved to 8Mb, whereas the oth=
er
> camp of core developers is firmly stuck in the =E2=80=981Mb or bust=E2=80=
=99 group.

His proposals actually end up with 20 GB and 8 GB respectively. I'm
not sure if you count me on the =E2=80=981Mb or bust=E2=80=99 group, but I'=
m not
firmly stuck anywhere.
I've never said that the block size should never be increased, that it
shouldn't change now, that 8 MB is too much or anything like that
because I simply don't have the data (and I don't think anybody has
it). I invite people to collect that data and I've written a patch to
bitcoin to facilitate that task.
Do you really think that's an obstructionist attitude?

My position could be summarized like this:

- We're going to hit the limit tomorrow, and Bitcoin will fail when we do.
- I'm not so sure we will hit the limit tomorrow but even accepting
the premise, this is a non sequitur. Fees will probably rise, but
that's not necessarily a bad thing. A limit that is meaningful in
practice must happen eventually, mustn't it? If not now, when are we
planning to let that "disaster" happen?
- That's too far in the future to worry about it.
- Does that mean waiting, say, 4 more subsidy halvings, 8? 10?
- Just don't worry about it

I'm not opposing to anything, I'm just patiently waiting for some
answers that never seem to arrive.
If people interpret questions or the fact that when people use
fallacious arguments I like to identify the concrete fallacy they're
using and state it so publicly (I do it for sport and "against all
sides") as "opposition", I don't really think I can do anything about
it.