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 CF63EACB for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:24:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25CD5E3 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:24:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wiwl6 with SMTP id l6so48226335wiw.0 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:24:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=57TIVGzhrZJkVzd/IHeMvlI/6EY8CtvgDVyBr1QfnIU=; b=x00LFzzZJY78NAix1Gm7EsBflzfeIalJHCMCJB8sufd5jSve022eii59pku28LVNeP 4qI1lf0SUObkbuTDOMZihSjtvrcGHGPPHpUevCckBGcueFgseHskZfHyThSlYO5lPObK nP+p8mhZVbpFRJtN+Jh1YpYFLLbuUGPzdM9yiKV7PWobMlO2NIdNsbT/wiZ4eGpd2Wne NpVtna8TNpWx7zuESysBi1H1+voQBQJAFgxvAT6/R9/0m+VmcR1+lxsrmNWAVVnxFFKE TXW7fK6R5OK/X777uNEUQVne/4LrPRRg7ZzgYA4TLlDJG+YwIDmn7FtPj9LFMHB3NK6B C/pw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.112.3 with SMTP id im3mr4061294wjb.54.1435332261917; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:24:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.137.38 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:24:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <558D6E26.4000004@bitcoins.info> References: <558D6E26.4000004@bitcoins.info> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 17:24:21 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Milly Bitcoin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1130ce229b3cb405196d551b X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:24:23 -0000 --001a1130ce229b3cb405196d551b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Milly Bitcoin wrote: > >None of this is a reason why the size can't increase. However, in my > opinion, we should do it because we believe it increases utility and > understand the risks; not because we're afraid of what might happen if we > don't hurry up. And from that point of view, it seems silly to make a huge > increase at once... > > Yes. I think people/businesses want some kind of assurance that there is > a path to get things done when needed rather than immediate changes. Since > there is currently no clear path/schedule to get any changes accomplished > they gets anxious. > I think you just proved my point by saying "when needed". -- Pieter --001a1130ce229b3cb405196d551b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly= @bitcoins.info> wrote:
>None= of this is a reason why the size can't increase. However, in my opinio= n, we should do it because we believe it increases utility and understand t= he risks; not because we're afraid of what might happen if we don't= hurry up. And from that point of view, it seems silly to make a huge incre= ase at once...

 Yes.=C2=A0 I think people/businesses want some kind of assurance that there= is a path to get things done when needed rather than immediate changes.=C2= =A0 Since there is currently no clear path/schedule to get any changes acco= mplished they gets anxious.

I think you= just proved my point by saying "when needed".

--
Pieter

--001a1130ce229b3cb405196d551b--