1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bip@mattwhitlock.name>) id 1Yq8gG-0006sw-6x
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 06 May 2015 23:24:44 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from resqmta-ch2-08v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.40])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Yq8gF-0006FJ-7Q
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 06 May 2015 23:24:44 +0000
Received: from resomta-ch2-17v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.113])
by resqmta-ch2-08v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
id QnAv1q0012TL4Rh01nB7Fy; Wed, 06 May 2015 23:11:07 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet
([IPv6:2601:6:4800:47f:1e4e:1f4d:332c:3bf6])
by resomta-ch2-17v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
id QnB51q0082JF60R01nB6lf; Wed, 06 May 2015 23:11:07 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 19:11:04 -0400
Message-ID: <1569618.2AHoSKjX9r@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.7 (Linux/3.18.11-gentoo; KDE/4.14.7; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me>
References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [69.252.207.40 listed in list.dnswl.org]
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Yq8gF-0006FJ-7Q
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 23:24:44 -0000
I'm not so much opposed to a block size increase as I am opposed to a hard fork. My problem with a hard fork is that everyone and their brother wants to seize the opportunity of a hard fork to insert their own pet feature, and such a mad rush of lightly considered, obscure feature additions would be extremely risky for Bitcoin. If it could be guaranteed that raising the block size limit would be the only incompatible change introduced in the hard fork, then I would support it, but I strongly fear that the hard fork itself will become an excuse to change other aspects of the system in ways that will have unintended and possibly disastrous consequences.
|
