rich1.0npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0uhttps://nostr.ae/npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0unjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18 📝 Original message:Matt, I for one do not think that the block size limit should be raised at this time. Matt Corallo also started the public conversation over this issue on the mailing list by stating that he was not in favor of acting now to raise the block size limit. I find it a reasonable position to take that even if you feel the block size limit should be raised at some time in the future, there are reasons why now is not the best time to do it. On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip at mattwhitlock.name> wrote: > On Thursday, 18 June 2015, at 8:31 pm, Ross Nicoll wrote: > > I may disagree with Mike & Gavin on timescale, but I do believe there's > > a likelihood inaction will kill Bitcoin > > An honest question: who is proposing inaction? I haven't seen anyone in > this whole, agonizing debate arguing that 1MB blocks are adequate. The > debate has been about *how* to increase the block-size limit and whether to > take action ASAP (at the risk of fracturing Bitcoin) or to delay action for > further debate (at the risk of overloading Bitcoin). Even those who are > arguing for further debate are not arguing for *inaction*. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150618/9989f38c/attachment.html>