Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report

From: "cipher anthem" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 18:03:44 +0200

Let me get this straight. You start this whole debate with a "kick the can down the road" proposal to increase the block size to 20MB, which obviously would require another hard fork in the future, but if someone else proposes a similar "kicka the can" proposal you will outright reject it?

Now that the majority have clearly rejected your and Gavin's proposal you decide to act like a 2-year old and reject any solution which isn't your own? Why dont you go sulk in a corner somewhere? Luckily Gavin is a more level-headed and reasonable person than you.

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 at 10:33 PM
From: "Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev" <[email-masked]>
To: "Matt Corallo" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Bitcoin development mailing list" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report

Any change that results in this happening all over again in a few years does not have consensus.
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email-masked] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev