Quote from: knightdk on January 16, 2016, 04:59:32 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on January 16, 2016, 04:51:19 PM

The tyranny of consensus and or possibly a single implementation with centralized authority and control?

I think that the consensus rules shouldn't be tied to one implementation. I think it should still be consensus and essentially voting, but still have consensus as we do now. And instead of the current governance with the one reference implementation, we should move to how the IETF does standards for the internet.

I can agree with this actually. You make good points, I suppose with my background in the humanities, I do not think that consensus will always be possible.

I think that for instance in the future there will most likely be a split regarding increasing the supply of Bitcoin. Since there are many people that do not believe in the deflationary economic model of Bitcoin. I would side with keeping the supply limited, however I can see how in the future especially as a larger segment of the world becomes involved with Bitcoin that this could become an issue and might even lead to a split.

I suppose I have embraced this aspect of Bitcoin. Just to be clear I do not think that this blocksize debate will lead to a significant split, I think we will reach super majority under Bitcoin Classic. However I do think that it is likely that there will be some diehards that might choose to stay behind, though I suspect their chain will be very small. But I do absolutely respect their right to do so, this is one of the beautiful things about Bitcoin, it has effectively solved the problem tyranny of the majority.