{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18\n📝 Original message:Is that a forward-looking position?  It does not seem so.\n\nThe whole point is getting out in front of the need, to prevent significant\nnegative impact to users when blocks are consistently full.\n\nTo do that, you need to (a) plan forward, in order to (b) set a hard fork\ndate in the future.\n\n\"We don't see a need today\" is therefore useless, because when you do reach\nX day when need is apparent, the best solution then becomes an immediate\nfork for which the network and markets are not prepared.\n\nFailing to resolve the block size issue soon will simply result in most\nbusinesses assuming relevant Bitcoin Core standards process is failing, and\nproceed with the Bitcoin-XT fork.\n\nAs I've said on IRC, the \"do nothing, for now\" position is untenable.\n\n-- \nJeff Garzik\nBitcoin core developer and open source evangelist\nBitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150618/9e4db165/attachment.html\u003e"}