Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3970ACB for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:22:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.help.org (mail.help.org [70.90.2.18]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B851144 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:22:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:22:19 -0400 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: From: Milly Bitcoin Message-ID: <558D6E26.4000004@bitcoins.info> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:22:14 -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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:22:25 -0000 >None of this is a reason why the size can't increase. However, in my opinion, we should do it because we believe it increases utility and understand the risks; not because we're afraid of what might happen if we don't hurry up. And from that point of view, it seems silly to make a huge increase at once... Yes. I think people/businesses want some kind of assurance that there is a path to get things done when needed rather than immediate changes. Since there is currently no clear path/schedule to get any changes accomplished they gets anxious. Russ