From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YqQjP-0004K2-3N for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 18:41:11 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of hotmail.com designates 65.55.111.163 as permitted sender) client-ip=65.55.111.163; envelope-from=slashdevnull@hotmail.com; helo=BLU004-OMC4S24.hotmail.com; Received: from blu004-omc4s24.hotmail.com ([65.55.111.163]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YqQjN-00017j-EW for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 18:41:11 +0000 Received: from BLU436-SMTP31 ([65.55.111.135]) by BLU004-OMC4S24.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22751); Thu, 7 May 2015 11:41:04 -0700 X-TMN: [LIVcuDf4Jmq2f8hcc6XBneVW3QVXMqVD] X-Originating-Email: [slashdevnull@hotmail.com] Message-ID: User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.9.150325 Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 02:40:50 +0800 From: Gavin Costin To: Mike Hearn , Btc Drak Thread-Topic: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me> <554BA032.4040405@bluematt.me> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3513897662_15840326" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 May 2015 18:41:03.0663 (UTC) FILETIME=[5F0A73F0:01D088F5] X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (slashdevnull[at]hotmail.com) -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [65.55.111.163 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 MIME_QP_LONG_LINE RAW: Quoted-printable line longer than 76 chars X-Headers-End: 1YqQjN-00017j-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 18:41:11 -0000 --B_3513897662_15840326 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Can anyone opposed to this proposal articulate in plain english the worst case scenario(s) if it goes ahead? Some people in the conversation appear to be uncomfortable, perturbed, defensive etc about the proposal =8A. But I am not seeing specifics on why it is not a feasible plan. From: Mike Hearn Date: Friday, 8 May, 2015 2:06 am To: Btc Drak Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase > I think you are rubbing against your own presupposition that people must = find > and alternative right now. Quite a lot here do not believe there is any > urgency, nor that there is an immanent problem that has to be solved befo= re > the sky falls in. I have explained why I believe there is some urgency, whereby "some urgency= " I mean, assuming it takes months to implement, merge, test, release and for people to upgrade. But if it makes you happy, imagine that this discussion happens all over again next year and I ask the same question. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= - -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y____________________= _ __________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development --B_3513897662_15840326 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Can anyone opposed to this pr= oposal articulate in plain english the worst case scenario(s) if it goes ahe= ad?

Some people in the conversation appear to be un= comfortable, perturbed, defensive etc about the proposal …. But I am n= ot seeing specifics on why it is not a feasible plan.  

<= /div>
From: Mik= e Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Date: Friday, 8 May, 2015 2:06 am
To: = Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourcef= orge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bit= coin-development] Block Size Increase

I thi= nk you are rubbing against your own presupposition that people must find and= alternative right now. Quite a lot here do not believe there is any urgency= , nor that there is an immanent problem that has to be solved before the sky= falls in.

I have ex= plained why I believe there is some urgency, whereby "some urgency" I mean, = assuming it takes months to implement, merge, test, release and for people t= o upgrade.

But if it makes you happy, imagine that = this discussion happens all over again next year and I ask the same question= .

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/2904= 20510;117567292;y_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-developm= ent@lists.sourceforge.net = https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development --B_3513897662_15840326--