1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
|
Return-Path: <laanwj@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81539BC6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:01:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com
[209.85.212.177])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9CE1149
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:01:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicnd19 with SMTP id nd19so64865830wic.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 06:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
bh=G0IESTblbDwp9epByQAxEqmkYicHoKHXJE1dPgbossI=;
b=W1MpvqCli/wzdxeIj/+qhPBAqwoCjcTZXHX6AMwsjphOVL3mYn1fLCAwXBPxKNs5BH
hLQMGO9p1j1eQUr9AuczBa1GlzKpcRjViQBtJgtVW99ueg7MtPjlVOyX4+jXpIU5i+1u
y+ukjwAUcP/q8rBA3pCIeqbGb06VOgjEYgBQnvi4bHcz3bqh7vvk/uBKelevXRWPSLhc
BiRjVRPCCn6MD+7rU55hjizBjrGml0vtE3d2QXk2e9UH/AfRBDuQ5aDD3SOgteODyR4X
xTpaC+7afqA94hUZeiz7o/A4A9QkInJPzS3LGXaxHDXLi89t7oUBEiPNpPFAUKH+/ihW
rwfw==
X-Received: by 10.180.77.129 with SMTP id s1mr5740762wiw.40.1435410102723;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 06:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from amethyst.visucore.com (dhcp-089-098-228-253.chello.nl.
[89.98.228.253])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e2sm29400037wjw.12.2015.06.27.06.01.41
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 06:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
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)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:01:44 -0000
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
|
