rich1.0npub1ldcq03p2qe58u0xnlwa35wchjuhz49y6ueu5ghmtjetez9xstnvsmt8ur6https://nostr.ae/npub1ldcq03p2qe58u0xnlwa35wchjuhz49y6ueu5ghmtjetez9xstnvsmt8ur6njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-03-29 📝 Original message:On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should > be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it. > Much as it may be appealing to repeal the block size limit now with a grace period until a replacement is needed in a repeal and replace strategy, it's dubious to assume that an idea can be agreed upon later when it can't be agreed upon now. Trying to put a time limit on it runs into the possibility that you'll find that whatever reasons there were for not having general agreement on a new setup before still apply, and running into the embarrassing situation of winding up sticking with the status quo after much sturm and drang. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170328/e04b8d19/attachment.html>