Re: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support.
The secret meeting isn't the problem but this is, "but never disclose who said what or their affiliation."
One of the rules.
Q. How is the Rule enforced?
A. Chatham House will take disciplinary action against a member or guest who breaks the Rule; this is likely to mean future exclusion from all institute activities including events and conferences. Although such action is rare, the rigorous implementation of the Rule is crucial to its effectiveness and for Chatham Houses reputation as a trusted venue for open and free dialogue.
Disciplinary action -
. What next disciplinary against against miners/users/developers. Who is going to be the judge and jury of dishing out disciplinary action in a decentralised environment. It's all rather comical.
One of the rules.
Q. How is the Rule enforced?
A. Chatham House will take disciplinary action against a member or guest who breaks the Rule; this is likely to mean future exclusion from all institute activities including events and conferences. Although such action is rare, the rigorous implementation of the Rule is crucial to its effectiveness and for Chatham Houses reputation as a trusted venue for open and free dialogue.
Disciplinary action -
. What next disciplinary against against miners/users/developers. Who is going to be the judge and jury of dishing out disciplinary action in a decentralised environment. It's all rather comical.My point was that if the decentralized system is well-designed, then entities meeting secretly/publicly under whatever conditions shouldn't matter because they wouldn't be able to do anything about the system. If one is afraid that the "rules" laid out in certain meetings are "unfair" or dangerous, it means that one thinks that whatever happens in those meetings may have an influence on the system at hand. But that simply means that the system's decentralization (and hence immutability) failed.
If the system were well-designed, no meeting or no collusion could ever have any influence on it, and all those meetings would be lost efforts.
Now, it might very well be that bitcoin HAS a stronger form of decentralization (and hence immutability) than we think, and that all these meetings ARE in vain. That would be interesting to see. However, then bitcoin faces another problem: the fact that its current (immutable) protocol is driving it into a wall with the block size limit.
So bitcoin is damned if such meetings can modify it, and is damned if they can't.
Good point. Would you think, that all that drama and meetings werent completely needed if there never ever had been such 1MB limit in the top level consensus rules, but rather every entity hat to limit 'spam' or max size by own definition and duties keeping the Nash equilibrium up and running?