Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <bip@mattwhitlock.name>) id 1Z5haO-0000jO-Jp
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:43:00 +0000
X-ACL-Warn: 
Received: from resqmta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.161])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Z5haN-00035y-Hq
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:43:00 +0000
Received: from resomta-po-18v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.242])
	by resqmta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
	id hxi31q0035E3ZMc01xitWF; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:42:53 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet
	([IPv6:2601:186:c000:825e:e9f4:8901:87c7:24a0])
	by resomta-po-18v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
	id hxir1q00L4eLRLv01xitAB; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:42:53 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:42:51 -0400
Message-ID: <1867667.WXWC1C9quc@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.9 (Linux/3.18.12-gentoo; KDE/4.14.9; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <55831CAB.2080303@jrn.me.uk>
References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net>
	<CABm2gDoa7KxsgvREo3yiNjfd6AeayqAqkjMe2rvX8yyxR_ddcA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55831CAB.2080303@jrn.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
	no trust [96.114.154.161 listed in list.dnswl.org]
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Z5haN-00035y-Hq
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer
	to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:43:00 -0000

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*.