Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:01:39 +0200
From: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: NxtChg <nxtchg@hush.com>
Message-ID: <20150627130138.GA28973@amethyst.visucore.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjOj9eXiDG0F6G54SVKkStF_1HRu2wzGqtFF5X_NAWy4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<CABm2gDr3orTHMN1q8vGmy3NpXWPy5i=zHhGneDGUk=ney3-e+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150627120935.GD25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<20150627121505.6E857417EC@smtp.hushmail.com>
	<20150627122543.GE25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<20150627125010.2B57E41A3F@smtp.hushmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150627125010.2B57E41A3F@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 03:50:09PM +0300, NxtChg wrote:
> >The *entire network* needs to agree to switch to your new software.
> 
> Why the "entire network"? So if, say, 75% of everybody involved want some change and 25% don't, the majority can't have it?

You can change your client, individually, to anything you want. You can also decide to switch along with a hypothetical percentage of others. Say, 75% of the users wants to confiscate the other 25% their coins. It is not without historical precedent.

No matter what the split is, or what it is about, the overall result will be confusion and have much less value than when there was one consensus. It's not quite Mutually Assured Destruction, but it is a very bad position to be in for everyone. So I'd dare say it shouldn't happen.

But I'm done arguing about this too.

Wladimir