📅 Original date posted:2015-05-06
📝 Original message:For now, lets leave the discussion to JUST the block size increase. If
it helps - everyone should assume that their pet feature is included in
a hard fork or, if you prefer, that no other features are included in a
hard fork.
On 05/06/15 23:11, Matt Whitlock wrote:
> I'm not so much opposed to a block size increase as I am opposed to a hard fork. My problem with a hard fork is that everyone and their brother wants to seize the opportunity of a hard fork to insert their own pet feature, and such a mad rush of lightly considered, obscure feature additions would be extremely risky for Bitcoin. If it could be guaranteed that raising the block size limit would be the only incompatible change introduced in the hard fork, then I would support it, but I strongly fear that the hard fork itself will become an excuse to change other aspects of the system in ways that will have unintended and possibly disastrous consequences.
>
Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e4…jxmcu
2023-06-07 15:33:32
in reply to nevent1q…fk4v
Author Public Key
npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcuSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 15:33:32Event JSON
{
"id": "2a841a7d1f23a251d67c9cd804e3309040602254861cf8db6bc4fafa3bd8b40d",
"pubkey": "cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba",
"created_at": 1686152012,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"0def597b074aa190bf159e12f9433ea74d157ee52321b38d195ba644ad5c177f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"64b6796ca04982d6a11c3d6f515dd92e4a481c4a057e5730d5643b9d38d70d50",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-05-06\n📝 Original message:For now, lets leave the discussion to JUST the block size increase. If\nit helps - everyone should assume that their pet feature is included in\na hard fork or, if you prefer, that no other features are included in a\nhard fork.\n\nOn 05/06/15 23:11, Matt Whitlock wrote:\n\u003e I'm not so much opposed to a block size increase as I am opposed to a hard fork. My problem with a hard fork is that everyone and their brother wants to seize the opportunity of a hard fork to insert their own pet feature, and such a mad rush of lightly considered, obscure feature additions would be extremely risky for Bitcoin. If it could be guaranteed that raising the block size limit would be the only incompatible change introduced in the hard fork, then I would support it, but I strongly fear that the hard fork itself will become an excuse to change other aspects of the system in ways that will have unintended and possibly disastrous consequences.\n\u003e",
"sig": "782cdf73e000e99cd88505c16d2f291bc79dda2921ec9dbac88a44d1ba67800b004437bdfa9110b200264d9a0cffb17db4e2b4251c9c65282670cea5463f90fe"
}