<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpg

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsx9hwt23ezfdppsg4k9pzlkxaawlyr3wfyh5pzs9x0e039k7s8gagprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctvc6kvrw

Publishing to

relay.snort.social

Last Notes

2023-06-07 17:45:44 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07
📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:17 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> No, I'm not trolling. I really want someone to tell me why we
> should/shouldn't reduce the block size. Are we going to have more or less
> full nodes if we reduce the block size?
Some arguments have floated around that even in the absence of "causing an
increase in the number of full nodes", that a reduction of the max block
size might be beneficial for other reasons, such as bandwidth saturation
benefits. Also less time spent validating transactions because of the fewer
transactions.
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150807/564f5483/attachment.html>