On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 5:28 PM, s7r <s...@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. See https://github.com/jtimon/bips/blob/bip-forks/bip-forks.org#schism1-hardforks 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. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
