📅 Original date posted:2015-05-28
📝 Original message:On May 28, 2015 10:42 AM, "Raystonn ." <raystonn at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree that developers should avoid imposing economic policy. It is
dangerous for Bitcoin and the core developers themselves to become such a
central point of attack for those wishing to disrupt Bitcoin.
I could not agree more that developers should not be in charge of the
network rules.
Which is why - in my opinion - hard forks cannot be controversial things. A
controversial change to the software, forced to be adopted by the public
because the only alternative is a permanent chain fork, is a use of power
that developers (or anyone) should not have, and an incredibly dangerous
precedent for other changes that only a subset of participants would want.
The block size is also not just an economic policy. It is the compromise
the _network_ chooses to make between utility and various forms of
centralization pressure, and we should treat it as a compromise, and not as
some limit that is inferior to scaling demands.
I personally think the block size should increase, by the way, but only if
we can do it under a policy of doing it after technological growth has been
shown to be sufficient to support it without increased risk.
--
Pieter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150528/e5331642/attachment.html>;
Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tj…jtl6r
2023-06-07 15:34:14
in reply to nevent1q…tnel
Author Public Key
npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rPublished at
2023-06-07 15:34:14Event JSON
{
"id": "135a82d765c0f5b42e6efa92a739b3d2585553ebc79670490ee4bf25415bb3a4",
"pubkey": "5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6",
"created_at": 1686152054,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"694beae5cf0503117bf68655e21320fb2b7f537c70de07a705defd4a792c1c4c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"3e5d044f61c825ac45127f0673019928900530d90c2a9754175d350cc4adb578",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3e6baaf01f15cb9383746ee7c1a225175502acbc3234f3e42160ad71d011e092"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-05-28\n📝 Original message:On May 28, 2015 10:42 AM, \"Raystonn .\" \u003craystonn at hotmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e I agree that developers should avoid imposing economic policy. It is\ndangerous for Bitcoin and the core developers themselves to become such a\ncentral point of attack for those wishing to disrupt Bitcoin.\n\nI could not agree more that developers should not be in charge of the\nnetwork rules.\n\nWhich is why - in my opinion - hard forks cannot be controversial things. A\ncontroversial change to the software, forced to be adopted by the public\nbecause the only alternative is a permanent chain fork, is a use of power\nthat developers (or anyone) should not have, and an incredibly dangerous\nprecedent for other changes that only a subset of participants would want.\n\nThe block size is also not just an economic policy. It is the compromise\nthe _network_ chooses to make between utility and various forms of\ncentralization pressure, and we should treat it as a compromise, and not as\nsome limit that is inferior to scaling demands.\n\nI personally think the block size should increase, by the way, but only if\nwe can do it under a policy of doing it after technological growth has been\nshown to be sufficient to support it without increased risk.\n\n-- \nPieter\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150528/e5331642/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "78f62b09c7c889fdebd3a3936bfdcb86e1643cc7b24985a1482d917409ff1ed7f54fb13af9b229405e8d0ab1964df4ee52c0e8fdaf86b6162e4a1801705bfc3e"
}