{"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\n\u003e It is a trivial *code* change.  It is not a trivial change to the\n\u003e economics of a $3.2B system.\n\u003e\n\nHmm - again I'd argue the opposite.\n\nUp until now Bitcoin has been unconstrained by the hard block size limit.\n\nIf we raise it, Bitcoin will continue to be unconstrained by it. That's the\ndefault \"continue as we are\" position.\n\nIf it's not raised, then ....... well, then we're in new territory\nentirely. Businesses built on the assumption that Bitcoin could become\npopular will suddenly have their basic assumptions invalidated. Users will\nleave. The technical code change would be zero, but the economic change\nwould be significant.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150507/29da17a8/attachment.html\u003e"}