brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
October 19, 2015, 08:54:51 AM

I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:

Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.

Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.

This is complete bogus as usual Peter.

The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.


If Core supported free choice by users, then we'd have an easy solution to the block size limit debate: they'd make it easy for node operators to express their support for "no change," BIP100, BIP101, etc, etc.  That would solve the block size debate in a hurry.  

However, the Blockstream crew is already on record saying that the users should *not* be the ones to choose.  And this is the reason they are opposed to allowing the people an easy way to express their wishes.  

Solve it how exactly? By a vote?

Did you learn nothing from the XT fiasco? For all I care I could put up 10,000 nodes that "express" support for 0.5MB block size. What then?