<div dir="ltr">> You present this as if the Bitcoin Core development team is in charge<br>> of deciding the network consensus rules, and is responsible for<div>> making changes to it in order to satisfy economic demand. If that is</div><div>> the case, Bitcoin has failed, in my opinion.<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Pieter, what's actually happening is that the bitcoin-core release has become a Schelling point in the consensus game:</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schelling_point">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schelling_point</a><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Due to the strong incentives for consensus, everyone is looking for an obvious reference point that they think everyone else will also pick, even though the point itself isn't critical, only that everyone agree on whatever point is picked. Like it or not, the bitcoin-core release, and by extension it's committers have a great degree of influence over what the community as a whole decides to do. If core screws things up badly enough, yes, the community will settle on some other focal point for consensus, but the cost and risk of doing so is high, so there is indeed unavoidable moral hazard for whoever has control over any such focus point.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br>Aaron Voisine</div><div>co-founder and CEO<br><a href="http://breadwallet.com" target="_blank">breadwallet</a></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev<br>
<<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> 2) If block size stays at 1M, the Bitcoin Core developer team should sign a<br>
> collective note stating their desire to transition to a new economic policy,<br>
> that of "healthy fee market" and strongly urge users to examine their fee<br>
> policies, wallet software, transaction volumes and other possible User<br>
> impacting outcomes.<br>
<br>
</span>You present this as if the Bitcoin Core development team is in charge<br>
of deciding the network consensus rules, and is responsible for making<br>
changes to it in order to satisfy economic demand. If that is the<br>
case, Bitcoin has failed, in my opinion.<br>
<br>
What the Bitcoin Core team should do, in my opinion, is merge any<br>
consensus change that is uncontroversial. We can certainly -<br>
individually or not - propose solutions, and express opinions, but as<br>
far as maintainers of the software goes our responsibility is keeping<br>
the system running, and risking either a fork or establishing<br>
ourselves as the de-facto central bank that can make any change to the<br>
system would greatly undermine the system's value.<br>
<br>
Hard forking changes require that ultimately every participant in the<br>
system adopts the new rules. I find it immoral and dangerous to merge<br>
such a change without extremely widespread agreement. I am personally<br>
fine with a short-term small block size bump to kick the can down the<br>
road if that is what the ecosystem desires, but I can only agree with<br>
merging it in Core if I'm convinced that there is no strong opposition<br>
to it from others.<br>
<br>
Soft forks on the other hand only require a majority of miners to<br>
accept them, and everyone else can upgrade at their leisure or not at<br>
all. Yes, old full nodes after a soft fork are not able to fully<br>
validate the rules new miners enforce anymore, but they do still<br>
verify the rules that their operators opted to enforce. Furthermore,<br>
they can't be prevented. For that reason, I've proposed, and am<br>
working hard, on an approach that includes Segregated Witness as a<br>
first step. It shows the ecosystem that something is being done, it<br>
kicks the can down the road, it solves/issues half a dozen other<br>
issues at the same time, and it does not require the degree of<br>
certainty needed for a hardfork.<br>
<span class=""><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Pieter<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>