Topic: . - page 15. (Read 24694 times)

Part of the time you guys are talking about the economic majority being important, then about the miners being the sole ones who decide. What's next? Make up your mind. Miners can't move without the industry and users; who are they going to sell their coins to?

Consensus is an emergent property which flows from the will of the economic majority. Proof of work is the best way to measure this consensus. The pools act as proxy for the miners, pools behave in a similar way to representatives within a representative democracy. Then in turn the miners act as a proxy for the economic majority. Since the miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority. In effect the economic majority rules Bitcoin, in other words the market rules Bitcoin. Bitcoin relies on the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus.

You see, I can differentiate between opinions and facts.
You seem to be unable to do that, so I'm not surprised
you would make this kind of bonehead argument.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Part of the time you guys are talking about the economic majority being important, then about the miners being the sole ones who decide. What's next? Make up your mind. Miners can't move without the industry and users; who are they going to sell their coins to?

It is a false statement. Without proper data, your observation is pointless to anyone sensible. I could easily state the opposite:"I have observed that many people here don't want 2 MB implemented.". So who would be right in this case? Since there are "no false statements" are we both right at the same time? You're making conclusions based on a small sample of mostly hand picked data.

where in the consensus mechanism to they get to decide?

It's not a false statement.   I didn't say anything about "proof".
I have observed that many people here (even those who support the Core team) want 2MB to be implemented.

 [drivel]

Until there is sound proof that the majority wants this, this is a false statement. I have not seen any kind of proof yet, have you?

There is no consensus in this case. That would cause a network split 3/4 and 1/4. If there is really consensus then 90% seems feasible.

[...]

Responding to "28 days is not long enough" :

[...]

[...]

With respect, the question should not be "is 28 days enough time for anyone
to roll out new binaries", it's instead a question of "how long does it
take someone to agree to upgrade to these new incompatible rules".

If Bitcoin users don't want to upgrade to incompatible rules right now, why
would they agree when 10% of the hashpower is setting some flag in a block?
Why would they change their minds at 20%? 90%? I am not saying here that
hard-forks should never be attempted, although we need as an ecosystem to
develop much more rigor and a more data-driven approach, and while that
might be hard to define exactly, as was once said by regulators, “I know it
when I see it”. Companies in the financial sector give a year or more
before deprecating old APIs even after the new one has been up and running
concurrently and well proven, and would not shut off their old one in order
to get adoption of the new one.

Are we OK with some percent of the Bitcoin ecosystem not agreeing with the
existing rules? What would that mean? Are you willing to maintain two
separate networks, and if not, would you please document this in your BIP?
Deprecation timeline and emergency procedures?? Should we include
rationalizations for not using a new address prefix? In the event of a
partial hard-fork where two chains exist, wouldn't it make more sense to
have the new chain use a new address prefix? Using a new address prefix
could conceivably serve to minimize the impact of what almost looks like an
intentionally constructed y2k-bug type of event for the ecosystem.

[...]

So users, developers and merchants don't matter anymore? Interesting.

I believe that most users want 2MB+ too. 

Thank you for your concern one pool with 26% can veto othervise majority consensus for change though.

You are wrong. Why not 70%, since a single miner could veto with 26% hashrate? Why not 50% because more miners could veto the change? That could only happen if there wasno consensus obviously.

Are you saying that people that support other digital currencies don't support Bitcoin? Actually, the opposite is true.

Altcoin prices are derived directly from Bitcoin's price, making the health and vitality of bitcoin of "extreme interest and concern" to supporters of other digital currencies. It is bitcoin that's opening the door for other currencies. We need the front runner to remain strong and free from subversion.

In addition, individuals involved in altcoins are some of the most technically knowledgeable and informed in regards to the blocksize issue!

So users, developers and merchants don't matter anymore? Interesting.

So users, developers and merchants don't matter anymore? Interesting.

You are forgetting that the larger portion of Miners are behind the +2Mb bump. Thats what is going to count.

You are wrong. Why not 70%, since a single miner could veto with 26% hashrate? Why not 50% because more miners could veto the change? That could only happen if there wasno consensus obviously.
Wrong. There is no indication that the majority support any contentious HF. If there is, I'd like to see some sources (e.g. bitcoinocracy shows one side of the situation).

BTW your avatar which promotes altcoin reminds me why only those who supports Bitcoin are important in this decision

Your wrong, it is dangerous if just one pool has veto about change thats why 75%, and Gavin asked relevant Bitcoin services whether 28 days is enought time for them to make necessary changes which he received positive responses.

The community support seems majority as well when you consider all the forums, not just btctalk + r/Bitcoin where it might be closer to 50/50 instead

Gavin is ignoring feedback from miners and others who told him 75% is far too low for a safe hard fork.¹

Gavin is ignoring feedback from everyone who told him 28 days is not long enough to give the ecosystem time to adapt with minimum disruption.²

But please, by all means continue.  You are welcome to die on the 2MB hill, sacrificing your reputation for Classic just like Hearn and Frap.doc did for XT.

You don't need to hold Bitcoins to use Bitcoin's blockchain; you only must spend enough to use the blockchain as an immutable ledger