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-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5hhT-0003gw-0s for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:50:19 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com ([209.85.223.171]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z5hhR-0003K4-Qy for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:50:19 +0000 Received: by iecrd14 with SMTP id rd14so63748066iec.3 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:50:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=/Jw0ss4a4iuYETEGNSAKR9oEeXd6H/Ud5X/S8y8A9ps=; b=KXR9je1nODhQ6FQi5szwYDW/IB7esH644rW2PmsNk7f09MrTrWdGJ1UvnjcDEC+8+h 9OGP6OEJaPjDg3dbbrbEl3NNKqafvVVWGkj0qN2VIN+aFMJtS3zAH0PCivLOnzM7ceU8 7g147A58CMF5ME9NyAYj2F/kwFYknemujzeIBnuQ+ffW4tWQel5OTz3DG7zSQGIh8olM lQSlBoC5B6wh+cu8HLe5ILEzYjSK4Onc9uIz+0IIpRhJs2Z/I3rDKXgwoSegRIyiuqx2 TsJ/cNNKzNd0QlBKaNRi1xSVPNJSs7AgFImZrMSO40fy9hcenrsisMjP/zdlKgkNStSt PQHQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkkpSqnn8AvpvYkPYGUzxBuZsac5wBY9fIP6YH8vPnhBJze/DoyJ0DZP4J+tXJu2+UdEd3Y X-Received: by 10.107.37.69 with SMTP id l66mr18047070iol.76.1434664212416; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:50:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.149.20 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:49:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [24.4.96.213] In-Reply-To: <1867667.WXWC1C9quc@crushinator> References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net> <55831CAB.2080303@jrn.me.uk> <1867667.WXWC1C9quc@crushinator> From: Mark Friedenbach Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:49:51 -0700 Message-ID: To: Matt Whitlock Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140ea02c12bde0518d1ca87 X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1Z5hhR-0003K4-Qy Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers 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, 18 Jun 2015 21:50:19 -0000 --001a1140ea02c12bde0518d1ca87 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Matt, I for one do not think that the block size limit should be raised at this time. Matt Corallo also started the public conversation over this issue on the mailing list by stating that he was not in favor of acting now to raise the block size limit. I find it a reasonable position to take that even if you feel the block size limit should be raised at some time in the future, there are reasons why now is not the best time to do it. On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Matt Whitlock wrote: > On Thursday, 18 June 2015, at 8:31 pm, Ross Nicoll wrote: > > I may disagree with Mike & Gavin on timescale, but I do believe there's > > a likelihood inaction will kill Bitcoin > > An honest question: who is proposing inaction? I haven't seen anyone in > this whole, agonizing debate arguing that 1MB blocks are adequate. The > debate has been about *how* to increase the block-size limit and whether to > take action ASAP (at the risk of fracturing Bitcoin) or to delay action for > further debate (at the risk of overloading Bitcoin). Even those who are > arguing for further debate are not arguing for *inaction*. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --001a1140ea02c12bde0518d1ca87 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Matt, I for one do not think that the block size limit sho= uld be raised at this time. Matt Corallo also started the public conversati= on over this issue on the mailing list by stating that he was not in favor = of acting now to raise the block size limit. I find it a reasonable positio= n to take that even if you feel the block size limit should be raised at so= me time in the future, there are reasons why now is not the best time to do= it.

On = Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> wrote:
On = Thursday, 18 June 2015, at 8:31 pm, Ross Nicoll wrote:
> I may disagree with Mike & Gavin on timescale, but I do believe th= ere's
> a likelihood inaction will kill Bitcoin

An honest question: who is proposing inaction? I haven't seen an= yone in this whole, agonizing debate arguing that 1MB blocks are adequate. = The debate has been about *how* to increase the block-size limit and whethe= r to take action ASAP (at the risk of fracturing Bitcoin) or to delay actio= n for further debate (at the risk of overloading Bitcoin). Even those who a= re arguing for further debate are not arguing for *inaction*.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/= listinfo/bitcoin-development

--001a1140ea02c12bde0518d1ca87--