MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0bmh5braGO5OKTNJU9VC_9=_1RDqHMx=aJBxT1w-q8oA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me>
	<CANEZrP3wGWHdz+ut6pvke5TJJsc1rTFt8sn2KziX35oL5LAsyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDpDvk2VsQ+mJ-BoeBKmvu9jBXNujZEFKuCStRNjFL6VOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP2zAGCCBhNa4=9yw+A_Dn5o4SQXoPTE_qcJzZ1dFuF2tw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDqd6iHRUDKZWWTudcC1QkYa+rCuHjz7pMC2K1Db8wpgfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP1CU0kB0vXeXUX1L8byaT-Zf2xg+3N+GeNthi_i6bn1qw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T2Nxvr4fqREMw3_LXftzsxrUAR1+9sVMa8_EpTnH1nN1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPWm=eUFe7dKJCLeNACZ4n9vw0Xj9rHVM_RRLSczGXNU-ShR2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP1tCda9EbYgYu5QHN8ZgBCtGP7zRiDaXnq-rWU0ZHR9NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJHLa0Nrp4QEQqrBu6Tb+dohxX2VhWKMnO40xscZF1OJdfPF-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP0bmh5braGO5OKTNJU9VC_9=_1RDqHMx=aJBxT1w-q8oA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 18:21:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDozyxovazcNEjWsRK0KzNJotWTg9X4m3aOfx7Gr_KprxQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
Precedence: list

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would very much like to find some concrete course of action that we can
> come to consensus on. Some compromise so we can tell entrepreneurs "THIS is
> how much transaction volume the main Bitcoin blockchain will be able to
> support over the next eleven years."

Mhmm, I hadn't thought about this. This makes sense and actually
explains the urgency on taking a decision better than anything else
I've heard.

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> If it's not raised, then ....... well, then we're in new territory entirely.
> Businesses built on the assumption that Bitcoin could become popular will
> suddenly have their basic assumptions invalidated. Users will leave. The
> technical code change would be zero, but the economic change would be
> significant.

This, on the other hand, is a non sequitur [1], another type of fallacy.
Well, several of them, actually:

- If it's not raised, then bitcoin cannot become popular
- If it's not raised, then users will leave
- Businesses built on the assumption that Bitcoin could become popular
were also assuming that it's going to be risen.

These statements may even be true, but they're no logical conclusions
even if they seem obvious to you.
I don't think those claims are strictly true, specially because they
involve predictions about what people will do.
But if they're true they require some proof or at least some explanation.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)#Affirming_the_consequent