<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26&#xA;📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Milly Bitcoin &lt;milly at bitcoins.info&gt; wrote:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; &gt;None of this is a reason why the size can&#39;t increase. However, in my&#xA;&gt; opinion, we should do it because we believe it increases utility and&#xA;&gt; understand the risks; not because we&#39;re afraid of what might happen if we&#xA;&gt; don&#39;t hurry up. And from that point of view, it seems silly to make a huge&#xA;&gt; increase at once...&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Yes.  I think people/businesses want some kind of assurance that there is&#xA;&gt; a path to get things done when needed rather than immediate changes.  Since&#xA;&gt; there is currently no clear path/schedule to get any changes accomplished&#xA;&gt; they gets anxious.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&#xA;I think you just proved my point by saying &#34;when needed&#34;.&#xA;&#xA;-- &#xA;Pieter&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150626/cc04ed8a/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>