On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 03:26:14PM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote: > On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:18:36 PM Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Peter Todd <p...@petertodd.org> wrote: > > > If we're going to consider doing this, at minimum we need to also > > > > I beg people to not derail discussion about fixing things with > > discussion of other controversial changes. > > I figured 2 MB in 2-3 years was fairly uncontroversial. > If not, let's scrap that idea for now.
The very statement that we're willing to increase the blocksize as our solution to increased transaction volume rather go down the path of off-chain transactions is incredibly controversial. Fuck it, I'll make this public: I've had at least one person who went to the trouble of finding my personal phone number just so they could leave a few text messages saying I was going to do serious harm to Bitcoin. At the same time I've also had a few people asking questions along the line of had started and/or was considering starting a formal group opposing the blocksize increase. I even got a significant anonymous donation a few weeks ago. (rather fittingly this was done by emailing me an easywallet URL from a throwaway account) It's not just forum trolls who care about the issue, even if they make the most noise about it. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
