Quote from: toknormal on September 04, 2015, 12:28:39 AM

Quote from: johnyj on September 03, 2015, 10:18:02 PM

I'm not talking about the right or wrong of each proposal, by bad I mean someone intentionally disrupt the consensus building process, e.g. insists on his own idea without making effort to modify it or make some compromise to reach consensus

Out of interest, how do you objectively define which party has "intentionally disrupted" the consensus, or even what the consensus was ?

If two developers launch a code revision and three refuse to endorse it, how do you determine which is the "disrupting" group ? By pure majority ? Does that mean that if one person changes their mind, the other group is now the disruptive element by definition ?

This is just crazy logic because the reality is that in open source there is no such thing as "consensus" in the general case because in theory the code is open to everybody for forking. You might only have one fork available or you might have multiple. If it's the latter then the network reaches a consensus about which fork to adopt but it's amongst the NETWORK PARTICIPANTS that the consensus resides because the concept has a formal and objective definition in that context. It is a non-existent concept in the context of the developer community other than as a loose agreement to refrain from creating multiple forks which, as we've seen, isn't worth the paper it's not written on.

The consensus comes from majority of the community members, not only programmers. Miners, exchanges, payment processors, merchants, investors, speculators, they are all the community member, and they all have different influences on the ecosystem

Programmers are the one that write the consensus into the code. At the beginning of the bitcoin, it worth nothing, programmers have large influence on its development. But at later stage, many people joined the ecosystem and built it up from all the other area, then these stake holders' involvement and contribution give them more incentive to care about the development of bitcoin

Indeed in open source you can always fork the code and implement your idea, but if you don't have the support from all the other participants in the ecosystem, you are going back to where bitcoin stands 5 years ago

People who strongly support bitcoins are mostly libertarian style entrepreneurs that can make individual judgement, they typically have certain degree of IT and finance competence, would objectively evaluate core dev's proposal. In this case the debate of the block size is more about the social and financial impact instead of a technical issue. I think many of them are more experienced in those area than programmers

Have you noticed that most of the miners switched to support BIP 100? I guess this is because BIP 100 give them more right of decision in the future, so from their point of view this is definitely better than give the decision making power to Gavin. You can see that everyone here is a wolf on the blockchain Grin

By the way, I'm seeing rising interest of a flex cap which only raises the block size when fee collected in each block is higher than block reward