Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 580478DC for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 22:29:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0D5311C for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 22:29:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB7AF38A6F73; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 22:28:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:151113:digitsu@gmail.com::AGSh4nQ/Aa257CO7:bw2Kl X-Hashcash: 1:25:151113:johnsock@gmail.com::D/R6NFRvq8Dw8HAg:SiFX X-Hashcash: 1:25:151113:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::vAF=zOcmzj=MzRE/:a0CBI From: Luke Dashjr To: digitsu@gmail.com Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 22:28:46 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.9-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <201511131052.58623.luke@dashjr.org> <1447430469019.e0ee1956@Nodemailer> In-Reply-To: <1447430469019.e0ee1956@Nodemailer> X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201511132228.47815.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev , John Sacco Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Block size doubles at each reward halving with max block size of 32M X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 22:29:20 -0000 On Friday, November 13, 2015 4:01:09 PM digitsu@gmail.com wrote: > Forgive the frankness but I don't see why signaling your intent to support > an upgrade to one side of a hard fork can be seen as a bad thing. If for > nothing else doesn't this make for a smoother flag day? (Because once you > signal your intention, it makes it hard to back out on the commitment.) It isn't a commitment in any sense, nor does it make it smoother, because for a hardfork to be successful, it is the *economy* that must switch entirely. The miners are unimportant. > If miners don't have any choice in hard forks, who does? Just the core > devs? Devs have even less of a choice in the matter. What is relevant is the economy: who do people want to spend their bitcoins with? There is no programmatic way to determine this, especially not in advance, so the best we can do is a flag day that gets called off if there isn't clear consensus. Luke