From: Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:42:46 +0200
Message-ID: <4608887.aSM42bDkNk@coldstorage>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <25FD9AAD-99F5-4322-AF34-243F75AE82C4@gmail.com>
References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com>
	<F7601CF2-2B89-4D11-8B56-8FFF63A4063C@gmail.com>
	<25FD9AAD-99F5-4322-AF34-243F75AE82C4@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't
	temporary
Precedence: list

On Thursday 30. July 2015 16.33.16 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote:=

>  I don=E2=80=99t think it=E2=80=99s really a matter of whether we agr=
ee on whether it=E2=80=99s good
> to raise the block size limit, Gavin. I think it=E2=80=99s a matter o=
f a difference
> in priorities.

Having different priorities is fine, using your time to block peoples a=
ttempts=20
to increase block size is not showing different priorities, it shows co=
nflicting=20
priorities.
Different priorities means you can trust someone else to do things they=
 care=20
about while you do things you care about.
--=20
Thomas Zander