Message-ID: <55833E58.4080106@jrn.me.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:55:36 +0100
From: Ross Nicoll <jrn@jrn.me.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>, 
	bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net>
	<CABm2gDoa7KxsgvREo3yiNjfd6AeayqAqkjMe2rvX8yyxR_ddcA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55831CAB.2080303@jrn.me.uk> <1867667.WXWC1C9quc@crushinator>
In-Reply-To: <1867667.WXWC1C9quc@crushinator>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer
 to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers
Precedence: list

There's some actually proposing inaction as an outright decision, but I 
more meant that at times it has felt like we would end up with inaction 
through momentum, combined with adoption rate making any hard fork more 
complex if it continues to be delayed.

On 18/06/2015 22:42, Matt Whitlock 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*.