<div dir="ltr"><div>><span style="font-size:12.8px">Only the majority needs to consent, though what is considered a majority varies depending on the context (95%, 75%, 51%). Nowhere does it say "everyone needs to agree".</span></div><div><br></div>There's a pretty huge gap between 90% and nearly 100%. 90% excluding 10% only 7 times results in only 48% of the original base.<br><div><br></div><div>><span style="font-size:12.8px">If a small dissenting minority can block all forward progress then bitcoin is no longer interesting. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Your definition of forward may be different than other users.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">></span><span style="font-size:12.8px">Is that really the bitcoin that you want to be a part of?</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Yes, I chose Bitcoin because it relies on a strictly held consensus mechanism and not one that changes on the whims of the majority. We have tens of dozens of political currencies for that.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div>><span style="font-size:12.8px">When the 1MB cap was implemented it was stated specifically that we could increase it when we needed it. The white paper even talks about scaling to huge capacity. Not sure where you got the idea that we all agreed to stay at 1MB forever, I certainly didn't. It was never stated or implied that we could change the coin cap later(please cite if I'm mistaken).</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">The community has not agreed that it is needed at this time. Perhaps they will change their mind at some point in the future. We have also learned a great deal since the publication of the initial whitepaper, such as the unstable state without a backlog or subsidy. Fortunately, participation in this system is voluntary, and you are free to leave at any time.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">This seems to be venturing quite off topic, and perhaps would be better suited for the bitcoin-discuss list.</span></div><div class="gmail-yj6qo gmail-ajU" style="font-size:12.8px"></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Andrew Johnson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andrew.johnson83@gmail.com" target="_blank">andrew.johnson83@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>If a small dissenting minority can block all forward progress then bitcoin is no longer interesting. What an incredibly simple attack vector...<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">No need to break any cryptography, find a bug to exploit, build tens of millions of dollars in mining hardware, spend lots of bitcoin on fees to flood the network, or be clever or expend any valuable resources in any way, shape, or form.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Just convince(or pay, if you do want to expend some resources) a few people(or make up a few online personas) to staunchly refuse to accept anything at all and the entire system is stuck in 2013(when we first started widely discussing a blocksize increase seriously).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Is that really the bitcoin that you want to be a part of?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">When the 1MB cap was implemented it was stated specifically that we could increase it when we needed it. The white paper even talks about scaling to huge capacity. Not sure where you got the idea that we all agreed to stay at 1MB forever, I certainly didn't. It was never stated or implied that we could change the coin cap later(please cite if I'm mistaken).</div><div><div class="h5"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 8, 2017 12:16 PM, "alp alp" <<a href="mailto:alp.bitcoin@gmail.com" target="_blank">alp.bitcoin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="m_7065370024643319909quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>Doing nothing is the rules we all agreed to. If those rules are to be changed,nearly everyone will need to consent. The same rule applies to the cap, we all agreed to 21m, and if someone wants to change that, nearly everyone would need to agree.<div class="m_7065370024643319909elided-text"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 8, 2017 10:28 AM, "Andrew Johnson" <<a href="mailto:andrew.johnson83@gmail.com" target="_blank">andrew.johnson83@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="m_7065370024643319909m_8271390937067804642quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">It is when you're talking about making a choice and 6.3x more people prefer something else. Doing nothing is a choice as well.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Put another way, if 10% supported increasing the 21M coin cap and 63% were against, would you seriously consider doing it?</div></div><div class="m_7065370024643319909m_8271390937067804642elided-text"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 8, 2017 9:57 AM, "alp alp" <<a href="mailto:alp.bitcoin@gmail.com" target="_blank">alp.bitcoin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">10% is not a tiny minority.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 8, 2017 9:51 AM, "Andrew Johnson" <<a href="mailto:andrew.johnson83@gmail.com" target="_blank">andrew.johnson83@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>You're never going to reach 100% agreement, and stifling the network literally forever to please a tiny minority is daft.<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 8, 2017 8:52 AM, "alp alp via bitcoin-dev" <<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="m_7065370024643319909m_8271390937067804642m_-4533964880556653042m_-8682514029143378247m_-1566305387424443597quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">10% say literally never. That seems like a significant disenfranchisement and lack of consensus.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="m_7065370024643319909m_8271390937067804642m_-4533964880556653042m_-8682514029143378247m_-1566305387424443597elided-text">On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, t. khan via bitcoin-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="m_7065370024643319909m_8271390937067804642m_-4533964880556653042m_-8682514029143378247m_-1566305387424443597elided-text"><div dir="ltr"><div>On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:luke@dashjr.org" target="_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span><span class="m_7065370024643319909m_8271390937067804642m_-4533964880556653042m_-8682514029143378247m_-1566305387424443597m_-8603678674590328520m_5903971323563278916gmail-">On Monday, February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote:<br>
> >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any block<br>
> >size increase hardfork ever.<br>
><br>
</span></span><span><span class="m_7065370024643319909m_8271390937067804642m_-4533964880556653042m_-8682514029143378247m_-1566305387424443597m_-8603678674590328520m_5903971323563278916gmail-">> Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how did you<br>
> come to this conclusion?<br>
<br>
</span></span><a href="http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.strawpoll.me/122283<wbr>88/r</a></blockquote><div><br></div>That poll shows 63% of votes want a larger than 1 MB block by this summer. How do you go from that to "the community opposes any block increase ever"? It shows the exact opposite of that.<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span><span class="m_7065370024643319909m_8271390937067804642m_-4533964880556653042m_-8682514029143378247m_-1566305387424443597m_-8603678674590328520m_5903971323563278916gmail-">
> >Your version doesn't address the current block size<br>
> >issues (ie, the blocks being too large).<br>
><br>
> Why do you think blocks are "too large"? Please cite some evidence. I've<br>
> asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful to the<br>
> discussion.<br>
<br>
</span></span>Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of economic activity.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Is this causing a problem now? If so, what?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves come down<br>
to the high resource requirements caused by the block size.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The reason people stop running nodes is because there's no incentive to counteract the resource costs. Attempting to solve this by making blocks *smaller* is like curing a disease by killing the patient. (Incentivizing full node operation would fix that problem.)<br></div><div><br></div><div>- t.k.</div></div><br></div></div></div>
<br></div><div class="m_7065370024643319909m_8271390937067804642m_-4533964880556653042m_-8682514029143378247m_-1566305387424443597quoted-text">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>