Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)
by
Carlton Banks
on 13/11/2015, 06:40:50 UTC
The free-market can solve a vast majority of problems better than central planning can, and given a proper chance to prove it, likely all problems. But a free-market of software nodes making the decision is the ideal model for governing aspects like blocksize; letting node operators choose freely just invites people with bad incentives to abuse the freedom. People like Peter R try to gently imply they want the former, when in truth, they're proposing the latter.

You are saying that people should not have this freedom because you think they will abuse it?

When you allow people to have freedom, you also need to allow them to make bad choices. You cant have it both ways, it is the consequence of freedom. I personally think it is worth it, since it brings about more good then harm overall in the greater society and civilization over the long term.

I don't "think" this, it's an observable fact.

It seems that there are two different ideologies in play:

1.  It should be easy for people to express their free choice regarding the block size limit because Bitcoin is ultimately a product of the market (bottom-up / emergent phenomenon).

2.  The block size limit should be set by a group of experts because people will make poor choices (top-down / policy tool).

You cannot determine only those 2 viewpoints from what I said, Peter, because I subscribe to neither.

The nodes should determine what the value is, not the developers. But the software itself in the nodes should make the determination, not the node's human operators. I've been saying this all along; dynamic blocksize limit is the best solution to me. And that's not what you're saying at all, Peter.