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
|
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 <jrn@jrn.me.uk>) id 1Z5hmj-0001PC-6Z
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:55:45 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from homie.mail.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.208]
helo=homiemail-a9.g.dreamhost.com)
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1Z5hme-00078y-ED for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:55:45 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by homiemail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D643662606D;
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.9.1.135] (unknown [89.238.129.18])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: jrn@jrn.me.uk)
by homiemail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D40E626075;
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
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
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 [208.97.132.208 listed in list.dnswl.org]
X-Headers-End: 1Z5hme-00078y-ED
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 21:55:45 -0000
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*.
|
