# Gavin Andresen
# 2014-10-08 17:36:07
# https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=813324.msg9131431#msg9131431

@s{quotedtext}
@s{quotedtext}
 @p{brk}
When I say "soft-fork" I mean "a majority of miners upgrade and force all the rest of the miners to go along (but merchants and other fully-validating, non-mining nodes do not have to upgrade)." @p{par}

Note that individual miners (or sub-majority cartels) can unilaterally create smaller blocks containing just higher-fee transactions, if they think it is in their long-term interest to put upward pressure on transaction fees. @p{par}


@s{quotedtext}
@s{quotedtext}
 @p{brk}
Would 40% initial size and growth make you support the proposal? @p{par}


@s{quotedtext}
@s{quotedtext}
 @p{brk}
Anybody know economists who specialize in this sort of problem? Judging by what I know about economics and economists, I suspect if we ask eleven of them we'll get seven different opinions for the best thing to do. Five of which will miss the point of Bitcoin entirely. ("...elect a Board of Blocksize Governors that decides on an Optimal Size based on market supply and demand conditions as measured by an independent Bureau of Blocksize Research....") @p{brk}