{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wt","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wt","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26\n📝 Original message:\u003e Proposing inaction is not the way you convince people that bitcoin can \n\u003e scale.\n\u003e\n\u003e People and businesses cannot perform any capacity planning and future \n\u003e projections under the proposal of \"economic change through inaction.\"\n\u003e\n\u003e There will be no growth, by your argument, until there is fee \n\u003e pressure.  And what happens then?\n\nIt is not clear he is proposing \"inaction.\"  I am not sure what he is \nproposing other than being against knee-jerk reactions.  He has also \nsaid he doesn't want to take on the responsibility of deciding on \nwhether to approve hard fork changes which is understandable considering \nall the other things he is doing.  Such a responsibility is probably too \nmuch of a burden to put on any one individual no matter who it is.  The \nnext step is to come up with a process to handle proposed hard-fork \nchanges other than just to ask the Core maintainer to do it.\n\nRuss"}