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 4324C405 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 06:42:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from pmx.vmail.no (pmx.vmail.no [193.75.16.11]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6AB5121 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 06:42:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pmx.vmail.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pmx.isp.as2116.net) with SMTP id 0B6356137C for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:42:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.bluecom.no (smtp.bluecom.no [193.75.75.28]) by pmx.vmail.no (pmx.isp.as2116.net) with ESMTP id D36B65F165 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:42:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from coldstorage.localnet (unknown [81.191.185.32]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.bluecom.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9E88A9C for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:42:47 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Zander To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:42:46 +0200 Message-ID: <4608887.aSM42bDkNk@coldstorage> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <25FD9AAD-99F5-4322-AF34-243F75AE82C4@gmail.com> References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com> <25FD9AAD-99F5-4322-AF34-243F75AE82C4@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't temporary 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: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 06:42:50 -0000 On Thursday 30. July 2015 16.33.16 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote:= > I don=E2=80=99t think it=E2=80=99s really a matter of whether we agr= ee on whether it=E2=80=99s good > to raise the block size limit, Gavin. I think it=E2=80=99s a matter o= f a difference > in priorities. Having different priorities is fine, using your time to block peoples a= ttempts=20 to increase block size is not showing different priorities, it shows co= nflicting=20 priorities. Different priorities means you can trust someone else to do things they= care=20 about while you do things you care about. --=20 Thomas Zander