From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YqRG5-00020T-9F for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 19:14:57 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me designates 192.241.179.72 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.241.179.72; envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me; helo=mail.bluematt.me; Received: from mail.bluematt.me ([192.241.179.72]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YqRG4-0004J0-EW for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 19:14:57 +0000 Received: from [172.17.0.2] (gw.vpn.bluematt.me [162.243.132.6]) by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5099D5437A; Thu, 7 May 2015 19:14:50 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <554BB9A8.9040604@bluematt.me> Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 19:14:48 +0000 From: Matt Corallo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Hearn , =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1YqRG4-0004J0-EW Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase 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: Thu, 07 May 2015 19:14:57 -0000 On 05/07/15 11:29, Mike Hearn wrote: > Can you please elaborate on what terrible things will happen if we > don't increase the block size by winter this year? > > > I was referring to winter next year. 0.12 isn't scheduled until the end > of the year, according to Wladimir. I explained where this figure comes > from in this article: On a related note, I'd like to agree strongly with Peter Todd that we should get away from doing forks-only-in-releases. We can add code to do a fork and then enable it in 0.11.1 or 0.11.11 if Gavin prefers more 11s.