Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function

From: Tier Nolan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 15:09:20 +0100

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Gavin Andresen <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger blocks
> now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to do the
> same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (hopefully)
> get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger blocks.
> The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they'd better
> start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them
> a chance to upgrade before that happens.
>

How do you define that the movement is successful?

For

> Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
> determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges
> and miners are running.
>

The measure is miner consensus.  How do you intend to measure
exchange/merchant acceptance?