<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Justus Ranvier <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:justusranvier@riseup.net" target="_blank">justusranvier@riseup.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 05/07/2015 04:04 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:<br>
> - This is a major change to the economics of a $3.2B system. This<br>
> change picks winners and losers. There is attendant moral hazard.<br>
<br>
</span>This is exactly true.<br>
<br>
There are a number of projects which aren't Bitcoin that benefit from<br>
filling in the gap left by Bitcoin's restricted transaction rate<br>
capability.<br>
<br>
If Bitcoin fills that gap, Bitcoin wins and those other projects lose.<br>
<br>
Should decisions about Bitcoin development take into account the<br>
desires of competing projects?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>heh - I tend to think people here want bitcoin to succeed. My statement refers to picking winners and losers from within the existing bitcoin community & stakeholders.<br><br></div><div>The existential question of the block size increase is larger - will failing to increase the 1MB limit permanently stunt bitcoin's growth?<br><br></div><div><br> <br></div></div></div></div>