2 ms·
> The vast majority of the bitcoin community has been trying to do just that. Thats a common claim made on easily sockpuppeted forums, but when put to cryptogr
by nullc 10y ago
> The vast majority of the bitcoin community has been trying to do just that.
Thats a common claim made on easily sockpuppeted forums, but when put to cryptographic votes, we find pretty much the opposite response: http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-win...
Similarly, I've found in person meetings to also yield similar results.
> But a few devs
Really, almost the _entire_ technical community; with the exception of a few high profile companies and their consultants.
> have unilaterally been able to block the changes
That isn't how Bitcoin works.
- out_of_protocol 10y agoI'm looking at this mess for quote a while and still don't understand - why not bigger blocks? Is there good reason for that? (Combibed with thin blocks it doesn't increase propagation and stuff even for chinese miners). I'd like to hear that developers think
- bachback 10y agowhy can't you face up to the fact that Blockstream is the de-facto governance body for Bitcoin? It claims it is, and you spend countless hours on the Internet trying to show the opposite. "Cryptographic votes" - duh, that's what the Bitcoin consensus should be for. I can't fathom that somehow so deeply engaged in the project doesn't understand this most obvious fact.