Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers

From: Mark Friedenbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:33:00 -0700

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Jeff Garzik <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

Or alternatively, fix the reasons why users would have negative experiences
with full blocks, chiefly:

  * Get safe forms of replace-by-fee and child-pays-for-parent finished and
in 0.12.
  * Develop cross-platform libraries for managing micropayment channels,
and get wallet authors to adopt
  * Use fidelity bonds, solvency proofs, and other tricks to minimize the
risk of already deployed off-chain solutions as an interim measure until:
  * Deploy soft-fork changes for truly scalable solutions like Lightning
Network.

Not raising the block size limit does not mean doing nothing to solve the
problem.