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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 580478DC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <luke@dashjr.org>
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
John Sacco <johnsock@gmail.com>
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 <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: 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
|
