notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1001


View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
January 13, 2017, 06:38:29 AM

if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"

idk... sounds nutty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection


If you wrap the protocol in SSL and run it on port 443 then it is indifferentiable from HTTPS.

Quote
i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"

you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.

I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end.

A hard fork will end the debate over the technical details, but it will start the debate about who gets to be called Bitcoin.  That's where it will get really ugly.