Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.149.75 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.149.75; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail149075.authsmtp.net; 
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:04:21 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Message-ID: <20130313160421.GA23566@savin>
References: <201303131256.30144.luke@dashjr.org> <20130313150501.GA14067@savin>
	<CAAS2fgT13KOu59O9u+ouQvo9BNUL-0EMeK1i2C980VpdQ41Pbw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201303131526.16406.luke@dashjr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201303131526.16406.luke@dashjr.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.8.1 ideas
Precedence: list


--SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 03:26:14PM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:18:36 PM Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> > > If we're going to consider doing this, at minimum we need to also
> >=20
> > I beg people to not derail discussion about fixing things with
> > discussion of other controversial changes.
>=20
> I figured 2 MB in 2-3 years was fairly uncontroversial.
> If not, let's scrap that idea for now.

The very statement that we're willing to increase the blocksize as our
solution to increased transaction volume rather go down the path of
off-chain transactions is incredibly controversial.

Fuck it, I'll make this public: I've had at least one person who went to
the trouble of finding my personal phone number just so they could leave
a few text messages saying I was going to do serious harm to Bitcoin. At
the same time I've also had a few people asking questions along the line
of had started and/or was considering starting a formal group opposing
the blocksize increase. I even got a significant anonymous donation a
few weeks ago. (rather fittingly this was done by emailing me an
easywallet URL from a throwaway account)

It's not just forum trolls who care about the issue, even if they make
the most noise about it.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlFAo4UACgkQpEFN739thowm0ACfR1If0f8iN4HMbJL6BjBKqeYb
i0IAoIRFF+WbGM5gyISleBuGUVIYHAev
=kGAg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s--