[bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
jtimon at jtimon.cc
Sun Jun 28 15:45:24 UTC 2015
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 5:28 PM, s7r <s7r at sky-ip.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> +1 for this Jorge.
> Agreed the majority should not be able to enforce rules over the
> minority. But if the majority will just leave and create an altcoin or
> whatever, this will leave the remaining minority with a less value (or
> even 0 value) product or service. By enforcing some rules agreed by
> the majority or supermajority, the minority will be dragged along and
> even so with rules they haven't signed up for, they will still have a
> product or service which is worth something.
If the Schism fork goes wrong (ie 2 chains coexist in parallel for
long) the result may as well be that NOBODY will be left any value.
Both the majority and the minority can lose simultaneusly.
That kind of hardfork is basically like forcing the users to go to war
against each other.
Really, I don't think civil war is an exaggerated analogy.
> That is why we have to be very careful into deciding this.
> This debate is good, there are lots of valid points from smart people
> and I am happy to see there is so much interest in this project, and
> regardless if the blocksize hard cap will be changed or not I do hope,
> if a hardfork will happen, it will also include a smart change that
> will allow future changes (requiring hardforks) simpler, with less
> headache and risks involved.
That sounds great. Do you have any proposal in mind?
I really want hardforks to be made, I just don't want to kill the
system attempting it.
More information about the bitcoin-dev