From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UFnZd-0000uV-Cz for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:26:44 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1UFnZa-0004GY-Bf for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:26:36 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [173.170.142.26]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A55D027A2968; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:26:28 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: Gregory Maxwell Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:26:14 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.7.3-gentoo; KDE/4.9.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <201303131256.30144.luke@dashjr.org> <20130313150501.GA14067@savin> In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201303131526.16406.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -2.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1UFnZa-0004GY-Bf Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.8.1 ideas X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:26:45 -0000 On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:18:36 PM Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > > If we're going to consider doing this, at minimum we need to also > > I beg people to not derail discussion about fixing things with > discussion of other controversial changes. I figured 2 MB in 2-3 years was fairly uncontroversial. If not, let's scrap that idea for now. > Luke-jr, any chance in getting you to revise your proposal to narrow > the scope to things that don't need serious debate? It was a one-time "start the conversation" proposal. I expect what we end up going with may be substantially different. Luke