Topic: Who should be in control of Bitcoin's blocksize (poll) - page 3. (Read 1959 times)

Nodes should be an option as we have the freedom to vote on various subjects, right? Now it's like OP wants you to choose from his offered options while there is more to choose, but the option is being kept away.

Reality turns out that at this point miners do have the majority of the power. In that regard it would make sense to vote for miners, but I stand behind the nodes option that isn't available.

I voted miners, but could have easily voted code based algorithm. But that really depends on what the code based algorithm is.

I think the group of person that should have control of the bitcoins blocksize are the bitcoin holders and exchanges. Since we are the ones buying bitcoins and places a huge capital on bitcoins then the miners should consider us as their clients or customers. In any business customer is always right and so the bitcoin holders through the UASF should organize all these things and make it possible.

Clearly the OP is trying to get everyone to vote for "miners" and then claim that miners support a larger blocksize, when this is not the case.  Bitmain supposedly supports a larger blocksize, for example, but that doesn't mean that the majority of miners actually do.  Many miners couldn't care less and are just in Antpool, for example, because they just wanted to join a big pool.

nodes=boss
pools=secretary
devs=workers
(listing in rank of importance)

imagine there was 2 pools and the node rule was 1mb
pool A with 500000000 exahash making a 1.000,250 block
and pool B with 4exahash making 0.999,750 block

pool A would lose, all that happens is that the orphan/reject stats would be higher for every block they tried

NODES have to have consensus and accept 1.000,250 block.
and even then thats just to try to keep the over 1mb going because the nodes are just in a orphan drama event.

---

imagine there was 2 dev teams
team A offering a proposal of 1mb rule with 5 developers
team B offering a proposal of 2mb rule with 50000 developers
team C offering a proposal of 2mb rule with 5 developers
team D offering a proposal of 1mb rule with 50000 developers

no one downloads their proposal because they didnt advertise well, or people just wanted to stick to what they had already..

---

imagine there was 2 dev teams
team A offering a proposal of 1mb rule with 5users
team B offering a proposal of 2mb rule with 20user

team A would lose, all that happens is that the orphan/reject stats would be higher cause when the 5 users connect to the network of 25 users. they see there are blocks being made at a higher height. but the 5 users reject the block after download as its not under1mb.. leaving team A rejecting blocks and being left unsynced at a lower height they cant grow from

---

NODES have to have consensus and accept 1.000,250 block.
and even then thats just to try to keep the over 1mb going because the nodes are just in a orphan drama event.

---

the only way to make sure that 1.000,250 blocks are acceptable without drama without fuss and with the pools making the blocks able to spend their rewards, is to have node consensus of majority, merchant/services node acceptance and

if the minority want to grow their lower rule. the minority need to completely ignore the majority to not care about the new rules. and only get blocks/communicate with a pool that is only making old rules

I think miners and the community...

I wish there was a way for bitcoin users to vote without having to have hashpower. Because not a lot of bitcoin users actually are able to get hashing power on their devices, but if the miners were the only ones that can vote, it would mean that we are leaving out the majority of bitcoin users.

Definitely not the developers though, because that would mean that bitcoin becomes centralised.

If the creator of bitcoin was planning to make it up to the miners to decide then It should stay that way, giving control to developers will do nothing but make things more centralized, not to mention that I don't know how could you consider someone a "developer"? simply because he contributed to the code once?

whaddya think?