Quote from: danielW on May 13, 2016, 10:11:21 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on May 13, 2016, 10:03:20 PM

Quote from: danielW on May 13, 2016, 09:52:39 PM

Quote from: gmaxwell on May 13, 2016, 08:24:05 PM

Pfft. I'm not going to mislead people by failing to call it what it is-- going to have some secret meeting where you are massively outnumbered with no strong negotiator on your side where you let yourself get compelled to commit to random things which are either largely meaningless or violate other people's trust and confidence in you (or, in fact, commitments you made to others before leaving) is a truly foolish move, if not quite "publicly endorsing scammer-wright" grade.

It's not the end of the world, people screw up, shit happens, goes on on-- but someone here asked the question as to why Luke was going around polling segments of the community what kind of hardforks they'd find acceptable, and that is why. It is a disappointment because its likely to exacerbate and prolong some drama which could otherwise be largely over now.

Im not sure Greg, things are only this calm because of the agreement.

Like it or not a significant amount of 'economic majority' want hard fork asap and most likely 'economic majority' want a 'reasonable' hard fork soon.

DanielW: What is your source for gauging what the "economic majority" wants? And, what do you mean by hard fork? Do you mean increase the blocksize limit, change in governance, some combination of such, or something else?

Hard fork to lift capacity.

Opinion of economic majority is something that is hard to measure. Mostly its based on my experience and anecdotal evidence. Talking to people in person and on web.

Edit: Some of the miners are not particularly happy with deal and want an increase in blocksize asap, what if Antpool or F2Pool or both started mining classic? Their combined percentage is 50% hashpower.

This would also energize other classic proponents and they would be far lauder.

That would be a very unproductive environment for everybody and certainly damaging to price.

Thanks for responding, but I don't think that your sources for a supposed "economic majority" are good.

I mean merely because there has been a lot of hype and loud voices around the issue (raising the blocksize limit) does not really mean that it is a good idea to raise the blocksize limit, even if there seems to be some common impression that there is some kind of "technical" problem, when there is not really any technical problem (such as delayed transactions and high fees).

The issue about raising the blocksize limit has mostly been a bunch of hype and loud voices, especially when there are various technical solutions (including seg wit) in the pipeline.