{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0u","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0u","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18\n📝 Original message:Matt, I for one do not think that the block size limit should be raised at\nthis time. Matt Corallo also started the public conversation over this\nissue on the mailing list by stating that he was not in favor of acting now\nto raise the block size limit. I find it a reasonable position to take that\neven if you feel the block size limit should be raised at some time in the\nfuture, there are reasons why now is not the best time to do it.\n\nOn Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Matt Whitlock \u003cbip at mattwhitlock.name\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e On Thursday, 18 June 2015, at 8:31 pm, Ross Nicoll wrote:\n\u003e \u003e I may disagree with Mike \u0026 Gavin on timescale, but I do believe there's\n\u003e \u003e a likelihood inaction will kill Bitcoin\n\u003e\n\u003e An honest question: who is proposing inaction? I haven't seen anyone in\n\u003e this whole, agonizing debate arguing that 1MB blocks are adequate. The\n\u003e debate has been about *how* to increase the block-size limit and whether to\n\u003e take action ASAP (at the risk of fracturing Bitcoin) or to delay action for\n\u003e further debate (at the risk of overloading Bitcoin). Even those who are\n\u003e arguing for further debate are not arguing for *inaction*.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150618/9989f38c/attachment.html\u003e"}