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
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mark@friedenbach.org>) id 1Z5hhT-0003gw-0s
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:50:19 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com ([209.85.223.171])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z5hhR-0003K4-Qy
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:50:19 +0000
Received: by iecrd14 with SMTP id rd14so63748066iec.3
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
bh=/Jw0ss4a4iuYETEGNSAKR9oEeXd6H/Ud5X/S8y8A9ps=;
b=KXR9je1nODhQ6FQi5szwYDW/IB7esH644rW2PmsNk7f09MrTrWdGJ1UvnjcDEC+8+h
9OGP6OEJaPjDg3dbbrbEl3NNKqafvVVWGkj0qN2VIN+aFMJtS3zAH0PCivLOnzM7ceU8
7g147A58CMF5ME9NyAYj2F/kwFYknemujzeIBnuQ+ffW4tWQel5OTz3DG7zSQGIh8olM
lQSlBoC5B6wh+cu8HLe5ILEzYjSK4Onc9uIz+0IIpRhJs2Z/I3rDKXgwoSegRIyiuqx2
TsJ/cNNKzNd0QlBKaNRi1xSVPNJSs7AgFImZrMSO40fy9hcenrsisMjP/zdlKgkNStSt
PQHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkkpSqnn8AvpvYkPYGUzxBuZsac5wBY9fIP6YH8vPnhBJze/DoyJ0DZP4J+tXJu2+UdEd3Y
X-Received: by 10.107.37.69 with SMTP id l66mr18047070iol.76.1434664212416;
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.149.20 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.4.96.213]
In-Reply-To: <1867667.WXWC1C9quc@crushinator>
References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net>
<CABm2gDoa7KxsgvREo3yiNjfd6AeayqAqkjMe2rvX8yyxR_ddcA@mail.gmail.com>
<55831CAB.2080303@jrn.me.uk> <1867667.WXWC1C9quc@crushinator>
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:49:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOG=w-scXm-46sp2NgR2UUp20R5ujuaAzW-jU_Owh20C4Xc=9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140ea02c12bde0518d1ca87
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-Headers-End: 1Z5hhR-0003K4-Qy
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer
to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers
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: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:50:19 -0000
--001a1140ea02c12bde0518d1ca87
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Matt, I for one do not think that the block size limit should be raised at
this time. Matt Corallo also started the public conversation over this
issue on the mailing list by stating that he was not in favor of acting now
to raise the block size limit. I find it a reasonable position to take that
even if you feel the block size limit should be raised at some time in the
future, there are reasons why now is not the best time to do it.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 June 2015, at 8:31 pm, Ross Nicoll wrote:
> > I may disagree with Mike & Gavin on timescale, but I do believe there's
> > a likelihood inaction will kill Bitcoin
>
> An honest question: who is proposing inaction? I haven't seen anyone in
> this whole, agonizing debate arguing that 1MB blocks are adequate. The
> debate has been about *how* to increase the block-size limit and whether to
> take action ASAP (at the risk of fracturing Bitcoin) or to delay action for
> further debate (at the risk of overloading Bitcoin). Even those who are
> arguing for further debate are not arguing for *inaction*.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
--001a1140ea02c12bde0518d1ca87
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Matt, I for one do not think that the block size limit sho=
uld be raised at this time. Matt Corallo also started the public conversati=
on over this issue on the mailing list by stating that he was not in favor =
of acting now to raise the block size limit. I find it a reasonable positio=
n to take that even if you feel the block size limit should be raised at so=
me time in the future, there are reasons why now is not the best time to do=
it.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On =
Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Matt Whitlock <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:bip@mattwhitlock.name" target=3D"_blank">bip@mattwhitlock.name</=
a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On =
Thursday, 18 June 2015, at 8:31 pm, Ross Nicoll wrote:<br>
> I may disagree with Mike & Gavin on timescale, but I do believe th=
ere's<br>
> a likelihood inaction will kill Bitcoin<br>
<br>
</span>An honest question: who is proposing inaction? I haven't seen an=
yone in this whole, agonizing debate arguing that 1MB blocks are adequate. =
The debate has been about *how* to increase the block-size limit and whethe=
r to take action ASAP (at the risk of fracturing Bitcoin) or to delay actio=
n for further debate (at the risk of overloading Bitcoin). Even those who a=
re arguing for further debate are not arguing for *inaction*.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/=
listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a1140ea02c12bde0518d1ca87--
|
