{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-05-07\n📝 Original message:\u003e The only answer to this that anyone with a clue should give is \"it\n\u003e will very, very likely be able to support at least 1MB blocks roughly\n\u003e every 10 minutes on average for the next eleven years, and it seems\n\u003e likely that a block size increase of some form will happen at some point in\n\u003e the next eleven years\", anything else is dishonest.\n\n\nMatt, you know better than that. Gavin neither lacks clue nor is he\ndishonest.\n\nHe has been working on the assumption that other developers are reasonable,\nand some kind of compromise solution can be found that everyone can live\nwith. Hence trying to find a middle ground, hence considering and writing\narticles in response to every single objection raised. Hence asking for\nsuggestions on what to change about the plan, to make it more acceptable.\nWhat more do you want, exactly?\n\nAnd I'll ask again. Do you have a *specific, credible alternative*? Because\nso far I'm not seeing one.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150507/55e48fed/attachment.html\u003e"}