References: <CAPg+sBjOj9eXiDG0F6G54SVKkStF_1HRu2wzGqtFF5X_NAWy4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<558D6E26.4000004@bitcoins.info>
	<CAPg+sBiPH_j+FJRuvBG6yWbPkC8-4gnC3UrJgw15apfB+DBxAw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcYKkrPO-9tiz8d2FFeLk4K7gSgVJG+4PXysi+n8LtXkYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
From: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
Message-ID: <558D9AC8.3020805@bitcoins.info>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:32:40 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcYKkrPO-9tiz8d2FFeLk4K7gSgVJG+4PXysi+n8LtXkYw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
Precedence: list

> Proposing inaction is not the way you convince people that bitcoin can 
> scale.
>
> People and businesses cannot perform any capacity planning and future 
> projections under the proposal of "economic change through inaction."
>
> There will be no growth, by your argument, until there is fee 
> pressure.  And what happens then?

It is not clear he is proposing "inaction."  I am not sure what he is 
proposing other than being against knee-jerk reactions.  He has also 
said he doesn't want to take on the responsibility of deciding on 
whether to approve hard fork changes which is understandable considering 
all the other things he is doing.  Such a responsibility is probably too 
much of a burden to put on any one individual no matter who it is.  The 
next step is to come up with a process to handle proposed hard-fork 
changes other than just to ask the Core maintainer to do it.

Russ