<unnamed>

Public Key

npub168j7xscxgv5tup3uxm0tpkktvc9ctzwuhj5szyhec3y4qwmrawaq9hhm7q

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsdre0rgvryx297qc7rdh4smt9kvzu938wte2gpztuugj2s8d37hwspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsspdulp

Publishing to

nostr.wine

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Last Notes

2023-06-07 15:43:00 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23
📝 Original message:> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 7:28 PM
> From: "Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> To: "Tom Harding" <tomh at thinlink.com>
> Cc: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks
>
> I'm frankly tired of all the negativity here
You complained about the lack of quantitative analysis being used, I gave it to you. There's nothing "negative" about displaying data which doesn't completely back up what your position is, I made a sensible conclusion based on the facts I have in front of me. Ignoring the information I collected and presented for you is incredibly childish.
> I'd really like to move from "IMPOSSIBLE because... (electrum hasn't been optimized
> (by the way: you should run on SSDs, LevelDB isn't designed for spinning disks),
I should stress that I didn't present that timing information as a dig against their software, it just happens to be something I have direct access to and can prevent clean data about. The point that I was attempting to make is that Bitcoin Core isn't the only piece of software in the ecosystem with performance problems, given that a large portion of users have Electrum wallets it would be insane not to consider the impact changes will have on the people that charitably run servers for the community.
By the way, is that an offer to buy my dedicated server some new SSDs?
> work with people like Tom and Mike who have a 'lets get it done' attitude, and
> focus on what it will take to scale up.
Scaling up isn't tweaking parameters and ignoring the brickwork falling around your head. You mention that you think the merkle tree can hold an unlimited amount of information, that's all very well so long as people can actually validate the thing. Miners aren't even willing to validate their own blocks at the peril of losing $7000 USD (on two occasions now), so why would anybody else?

2023-06-07 15:42:35 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-24
📝 Original message:> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 at 10:52 AM
> From: "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> To: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 102 - kick the can down the road to 2MB
>
>
> The reference to bandwidth increases makes no sense, the bandwidth in most of
> the world is already far exceeding the 8Mb limit. Not everyone lives where you
> live :)
>
> In Germany you buy a 150Mbit connection for a flatrate and a cheap monthly
> rate, for instance. Not saying that Germany is where all the miners are, but
> since 150Mbit allows one to comfortably have 16 megabyte blocks, it is a good
> example of how far off Luke's calculations are from real-world.
I'll have better stats available soon, but this does not reflect the current state of the network.
Only 4% of my initial crawl presented bandwidth above your stated 18MB/s.