Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
	designates 209.85.218.42 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.218.42; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
	helo=mail-oi0-f42.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-scXm-46sp2NgR2UUp20R5ujuaAzW-jU_Owh20C4Xc=9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net>
	<CABm2gDoa7KxsgvREo3yiNjfd6AeayqAqkjMe2rvX8yyxR_ddcA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55831CAB.2080303@jrn.me.uk> <1867667.WXWC1C9quc@crushinator>
	<CAOG=w-scXm-46sp2NgR2UUp20R5ujuaAzW-jU_Owh20C4Xc=9A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:58:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0Mhnma8_ys2ckEA+dLT-EWnqO4j8YKMSaf3Tvv_K14czQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e014954c83ace7a0518d1e821
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Gavin Andresen <gavin@bitcoinfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer
 to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers
Precedence: list

--089e014954c83ace7a0518d1e821
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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/

--089e014954c83ace7a0518d1e821
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Is that a forward-looking position?=C2=A0 It does not seem=
 so.<div><br></div><div>The whole point is getting out in front of the need=
, to prevent significant negative impact to users when blocks are consisten=
tly full.</div><div><br></div><div>To do that, you need to (a) plan forward=
, in order to (b) set a hard fork date in the future.</div><div><br></div><=
div>&quot;We don&#39;t see a need today&quot; is therefore useless, because=
 when you do reach X day when need is apparent, the best solution then beco=
mes an immediate fork for which the network and markets are not prepared.</=
div><div><br></div><div>Failing to resolve the block size issue soon will s=
imply result in most businesses assuming relevant Bitcoin Core standards pr=
ocess is failing, and proceed with the Bitcoin-XT fork.</div><div><br></div=
><div>As I&#39;ve said on IRC, the &quot;do nothing, for now&quot; position=
 is untenable.</div><div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">-- <br><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_signature">Jeff Garzik<br>Bitcoin core developer and open sou=
rce evangelist<br>BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"https://bitpa=
y.com/" target=3D"_blank">https://bitpay.com/</a></div>
</div></div>

--089e014954c83ace7a0518d1e821--