rich1.0npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58https://nostr.ae/npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18 📝 Original message:Is that a forward-looking position? It does not seem so. The whole point is getting out in front of the need, to prevent significant negative impact to users when blocks are consistently full. To do that, you need to (a) plan forward, in order to (b) set a hard fork date in the future. "We don't see a need today" is therefore useless, because when you do reach X day when need is apparent, the best solution then becomes an immediate fork for which the network and markets are not prepared. Failing to resolve the block size issue soon will simply result in most businesses assuming relevant Bitcoin Core standards process is failing, and proceed with the Bitcoin-XT fork. As I've said on IRC, the "do nothing, for now" position is untenable. -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150618/9e4db165/attachment.html>