"10% say literally never. That seems like a significant disenfranchisement and lack of consensus."
Certainly the poll results should be taken with a grain of salt and not a definitive answer or measure . However if we agree the poll has some worth (or even if not, then lets use it as hyptothetical): If we split it into two groups: those okay with a hardfork at some point > now, and those never okay with hardfork, that means there is 90% that agree a hardfork is acceptable in the future. That said, what threshold defines consensus then? 98%? 100%? Personally I think pursuing paths that maximize net social benefit in terms of cost surplus/burden is the best way to go since consensus is such an impossible to define, variable, case-by-case thing that doesn't always lead to the best choice. -Ryan J. MArtin ________________________________________ From: bitcoin-dev-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org [bitcoin-dev-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org] on behalf of bitcoin-dev-requ...@lists.linuxfoundation.org [bitcoin-dev-requ...@lists.linuxfoundation.org] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 7:00 AM To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 21, Issue 10 Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to bitcoin-dev-requ...@lists.linuxfoundation.org You can reach the person managing the list at bitcoin-dev-ow...@lists.linuxfoundation.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP (alp alp) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:44:52 -0600 From: alp alp <alp.bitc...@gmail.com> To: "t. khan" <teekha...@gmail.com>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP Message-ID: <CAMBsKS9OS2tA4bG-JG96XNZTiPyuq322Qu=fyjcz1btvj3t...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 10% say literally never. That seems like a significant disenfranchisement and lack of consensus. On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, t. khan via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr <l...@dashjr.org> wrote: > >> On Monday, February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote: >> > >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any >> block >> > >size increase hardfork ever. >> > >> > Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how did >> you >> > come to this conclusion? >> >> http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r > > > 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. > > >> > >Your version doesn't address the current block size >> > >issues (ie, the blocks being too large). >> > >> > Why do you think blocks are "too large"? Please cite some evidence. I've >> > asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful to >> the >> > discussion. >> >> Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of economic activity. >> > > Is this causing a problem now? If so, what? > > >> Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves come >> down >> to the high resource requirements caused by the block size. > > > 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.) > > - t.k. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170208/18d9cda5/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 21, Issue 10 ******************************************* _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev