MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 12:46:11 +0300
To: "Eric Lombrozo" <elombrozo@gmail.com>
From: "NxtChg" <nxtchg@hush.com>
In-Reply-To: <CE3B7411-2863-4D6B-85B0-4F28D4D7F391@gmail.com>
References: <20150817100918.BD1F343128@smtp.hushmail.com>
	<1439815244.89850.YahooMailBasic@web173102.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
	<20150817133438.DDD4243128@smtp.hushmail.com>
	<CE3B7411-2863-4D6B-85B0-4F28D4D7F391@gmail.com> 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20150818094612.2344943128@smtp.hushmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT
Precedence: list

Eric,

>FWIW...

These are all good points and I agree with most of them. Yes, the block size debate is a lucky historical accident, which makes it easier for XT to pull off the split, but that's not the point.

The point is, the split _must_ happen because the centralized governance of Bitcoin became a bigger problem than the risks of a fork or larger blocks.

You cannot govern a decentralized currency with a centralized entity.

That's why we shouldn't fear hard forks - they are the new reality, and if we cannot set up a reliable process for them to happen then there _is_ no decentralized Bitcoin and we all might as well just give up and go home.

----

And that's why it would be nice to have a more complex voting mechanism in the block header (see this proposal for the new header format, for example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1151698) and other initiatives to make forking more reliable and user choice easier.

This is a better path than trying to suppress all forks by dictatorship methods of the few currently in power.