I think it would be more strategic to go the other way. Present this now,
let everyone freak out about "no limit Bitcoin" and then Bip 101 will seem
more reasonable by comparison (to those that believe we need a limit
or the sky will fall).
let everyone freak out about "no limit Bitcoin" and then Bip 101 will seem
more reasonable by comparison (to those that believe we need a limit
or the sky will fall).
I half agree. But my worry is that without a more convincing presentation, it won't be taken seriously (i.e., it won't cause "everyone freak out about 'no limit Bitcoin.'")
Yes it needs more meat.
A list of considerations and objections would need to be compiled and then addressed.
Agreed. The most recurring objection in the Reddit thread was: if most the hash power doesn't set the exact same limit, then there exists a "sweet spot"-block size that splits the network exactly in half. I don't think this will happen because everyone knows that it could happen unless most people come to consensus on a limit. As long as nodes/miners can efficiently communicate block size limit negotiations, then I think we'll witness what I call "spontaneous consensus" events sort of like a phase change in matter (liquid -> solid) but instead the 1 MB limit crumbles and a new precise limit at (e.g.) 8 MB is erected.
Quote
What got me started on this thread was the thought that "hey wait a sec,
everyone had consensus on what Bitcoin is and does, but now we can't
agree because of some stupid technical detail."
everyone had consensus on what Bitcoin is and does, but now we can't
agree because of some stupid technical detail."
Exactly! The same thought hit me recently too
