rich1.0npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydhttps://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-05-07 📝 Original message:> The only answer to this that anyone with a clue should give is "it > will very, very likely be able to support at least 1MB blocks roughly > every 10 minutes on average for the next eleven years, and it seems > likely that a block size increase of some form will happen at some point in > the next eleven years", anything else is dishonest. Matt, you know better than that. Gavin neither lacks clue nor is he dishonest. He has been working on the assumption that other developers are reasonable, and some kind of compromise solution can be found that everyone can live with. Hence trying to find a middle ground, hence considering and writing articles in response to every single objection raised. Hence asking for suggestions on what to change about the plan, to make it more acceptable. What more do you want, exactly? And I'll ask again. Do you have a *specific, credible alternative*? Because so far I'm not seeing one. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150507/55e48fed/attachment.html>