Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18 📝 Original message:>For example, I think some ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18
📝 Original message:>For example, I think some of the resistance for bigger blocks is coming
>from contributors who are worried they, personally, won't be able to
>keep
>up with a bigger blockchain. They might not be able to run full nodes
>from
>their home network connections (or might not be able to run a full node
>AND
>stream Game of Thrones), on their old raspberry pi machines.

Ive been trying to stay out of these increasingly useless shit-throwing contests, but I wanted to take objection to this... I highly, highly doubt any seriously technical person is making any kind of decision on block size issues based on their own personal network. If you're assuming this is a serious motivating factor for anyone, then I'm not sure you've even been reading your email or listening to the conversations you've had with people over the last year or more.

On June 18, 2015 11:23:33 AM PDT, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Alex Morcos <morcos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Let me take a pass at explaining how I see this.
>>
>> 1) Code changes to Bitcoin Core that don't change consensus:
>Wladimir is
>> the decider but he works under a process that is well understood by
>> developers on the project in which he takes under reasonable
>consideration
>> other technical opinions and prefers to have clear agreement among
>them.
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>2) Changes to the consensus rules: As others have said, this isn't
>anyone's
>> decision for anyone else.
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>
>> It's up to each individual user as to what code they run and what
>rules
>> they enforce. So then why is everyone so up in arms about what Mike
>and
>> Gavin are proposing if everyone is free to decide for themselves? I
>> believe that each individual user should adhere to the principle that
>there
>> should be no changes to the consensus rules unless there is near
>complete
>> agreement among the entire community, users, developers, businesses
>miners
>> etc. It is not necessary to define complete agreement exactly because
>every
>> individual person decides for themselves. I believe that this is
>what
>> gives Bitcoin, or really any money, its value and what makes it work,
>that
>> we all agree on exactly what it is. So I believe that it is
>misleading and
>> bad for Bitcoin to tell users and business that you can just choose
>without
>> concern for everyone else which code you'll run and we'll see which
>one
>> wins out. No. You should run the old consensus rules (on any
>codebase you
>> want) until you believe that pretty much everyone has consented to a
>change
>> in the rules. It is your choice, but I think a lot of people that
>have
>> spent time thinking about the philosophy of consensus systems believe
>that
>> when the users of the system have this principle in mind, it's what
>will
>> make the system work best.
>>
>
>I don't think I agree with "pretty much everybody", because status-quo
>bias
>is a very powerful thing. Any change that disrupts the way they've been
>doing things will generate significant resistance -- there will be 10
>or
>20% of any population that will take a position of "too busy to think
>about
>this, everything seems to be working great, I don't like change, NO to
>any
>change."
>
>For example, I think some of the resistance for bigger blocks is coming
>from contributors who are worried they, personally, won't be able to
>keep
>up with a bigger blockchain. They might not be able to run full nodes
>from
>their home network connections (or might not be able to run a full node
>AND
>stream Game of Thrones), on their old raspberry pi machines.
>
>The criteria for me is "clear super-majority of the people and
>businesses
>who are using Bitcoin the most," and I think that criteria is met.
>
>
>
>> 3) Code changes to Core that do change consensus: I think that
>Wladimir,
>> all the other committers besides Gavin, and almost all of the other
>> developers on Core would defer to #2 above and wait for its outcome
>to be
>> clear before considering such a code change.
>>
>
>Yes, that's the way it has mostly been working. But even before
>stepping
>down as Lead I was starting to wonder if there are ANY successful open
>source projects that didn't have either a Benevolent Dictator or some
>clear
>voting process to resolve disputes that cannot be settled with "rough
>consensus."