From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24F3DBC4 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:15:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from smtp1.hushmail.com (smtp1.hushmail.com [65.39.178.135]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAC6920A for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:15:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.hushmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AF82840140 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:15:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.hushmail.com (w7.hushmail.com [65.39.178.32]) by smtp1.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:15:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.hushmail.com (Postfix, from userid 99) id 6E857417EC; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:15:05 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:15:05 +0300 To: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" From: "NxtChg" In-Reply-To: <20150627120935.GD25420@amethyst.visucore.com> References: <20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com> <20150627120935.GD25420@amethyst.visucore.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-Id: <20150627121505.6E857417EC@smtp.hushmail.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:15:06 -0000 On 6/27/2015 at 3:09 PM, "Wladimir J. van der Laan" wrote: >Not sure though. The only way to find out is to propose them and see. Maybe wait a bit until things have cooled down... And then we are again at the mercy of a single "decider" to judge whether something is controversial or not? It was pointed several times before that with enough loud minority you can make any change seem controversial.