Quote from: Lauda on December 15, 2015, 07:18:48 AM

Quote from: johnyj on December 15, 2015, 04:46:41 AM

Good to hear this, and thanks for sharing the video from Vinay Gupta. I suddenly understand lots of thing in the latest HongKong consensus conference. Why Gavin was not there, why Pieter was rush to push in a strange soft fork proposal and why Jeff said you should not be afraid of hard fork. It seems there are still very strong political struggle inside

Just because you don't understand something properly that does not make it strange. Typical average humans. BIP101 would result in self-destruction within the first 2 increases.

I can give you a 10 pages proposal written in ancient chinese + arabic, and tell you this one can solve all the problems for bitcoin, would you accept my proposal? You need to first go into some university for 10 years before you understand what I'm talking about, or you simply ignore it?

Same thing here, if a proposal is too complex for average people to understand, it will just be ignored. In fact, BIP101's problem is just because it introduced a very radical scheme of block size increase that people don't fully understand the consequence of that change. Suppose that it promoted a 2MB block size increase, it should have much larger support than today

But at least you understand that BIP101 will increase the risk of centralization. However for SW proposal, I totally don't understand anything at all: By changing the bitcoin architecture, Pieter essentially change it to something else, an alt-coin. So all the talks about SW should go into alt-coin section, not here. And all this large degree of deviation from Satoshi's original design for what? A mere one time increase for capacity of light nodes, not even helping full nodes?

Nassim Nicholas Taleb: "Solutions need to be at least as simple as the problem they solve. Anything else brings multiplicative unintended side effects."