{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Milly Bitcoin \u003cmilly at bitcoins.info\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e \u003eNone of this is a reason why the size can't increase. However, in my\n\u003e opinion, we should do it because we believe it increases utility and\n\u003e understand the risks; not because we're afraid of what might happen if we\n\u003e don't hurry up. And from that point of view, it seems silly to make a huge\n\u003e increase at once...\n\u003e\n\u003e Yes.  I think people/businesses want some kind of assurance that there is\n\u003e a path to get things done when needed rather than immediate changes.  Since\n\u003e there is currently no clear path/schedule to get any changes accomplished\n\u003e they gets anxious.\n\u003e\n\nI think you just proved my point by saying \"when needed\".\n\n-- \nPieter\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150626/cc04ed8a/attachment.html\u003e"}