<div dir="ltr">How is this being pigheaded? In my opinion, this is leadership. If *something* isn't implemented soon, the network is going to have some real problems, right at the<div>time when adoption is starting to accelerate. I've been seeing nothing but navel-gazing and circlejerks on this issue for weeks now. Gavin or Mike or someone at some</div><div>point needs to step up and say "follow me".</div><div><br></div><div>Braun Brelin</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:00 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:insecurity@national.shitposting.agency" target="_blank">insecurity@national.shitposting.agency</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Are you really that pig headed that you are going to try and blow up the<br>
entire system just to get your way? A bunch of ignorant redditors do not<br>
make consensus, mercifully.<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 2015-05-29 12:39, Gavin Andresen wrote:<br>
> What do other people think?<br>
><br>
> If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help<br>
> reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that<br>
> implement a big increase now that grows over time so we may never have<br>
> to go through all this rancor and debate again.<br>
><br>
> I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges<br>
> and hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure<br>
> companies (and anybody who agrees with me that we need bigger blocks<br>
> sooner rather than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core,<br>
> and state that they are running it. We'll be able to see uptake on the<br>
> network by monitoring client versions.<br>
><br>
> Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consensus bigger blocks<br>
> are needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The early<br>
> deployment will just serve as early testing, and all of the software<br>
> already deployed will ready for bigger blocks.<br>
><br>
> But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger<br>
> blocks now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big<br>
> miners to do the same, and use the soft-fork block version voting<br>
> mechanism to (hopefully) get a majority and then a super-majority<br>
> willing to produce bigger blocks. The purpose of that process is to<br>
> prove to any doubters that they'd better start supporting bigger<br>
> blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them a chance to upgrade<br>
> before that happens.<br>
><br>
> Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for<br>
> determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and<br>
> exchanges and miners are running.<br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Gavin Andresen<br>
><br>
</div></div>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development" target="_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br>
<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development" target="_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>