{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-06\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Jorge Timón\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e This is a much more reasonable position. I wish this had been starting\n\u003e\u003e point of this discussion instead of \"the block size limit must be\n\u003e\u003e increased as soon as possible or bitcoin will fail\".\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e It REALLY doesn't help the debate when you say patently false statements\n\u003e like that.\n\nI'm pretty sure that I can quote Mike Hearn with a sentence extremely\nsimilar to that in this forum or in some of his blog posts (not in\nhttps://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32 at a first\nglance...).\nBut yeah, what people said in the past is not very important: people\nchange their minds (they even acknowledge their mistake some times).\nWhat interests me more it's what people think now.\n\nI don't want to put words in your mouth and you are more than welcome\nto correct what I think you think with what you really think.\nAll I'm trying to do is framing your fears properly.\nIf I say \"all fears related to not raising the block size limit in the\nshort term can be summarized as a fear of fees rising in the short\nterm\".\nAm I correct? Am I missing some other argument?\nOf course, problems that need to be solved regardless of the block\nsize (like an unbounded mempool) should not be considered for this\ndiscussion.\n\n\u003e My first blog post on this issue is here:\n\u003e   http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent\n\u003e\n\u003e ... and I NEVER say \"Bitcoin will fail\".  I say:\n\u003e\n\u003e \"If the number of transactions waiting gets large enough, the end result\n\u003e will be an over-saturated network, busy doing nothing productive. I don’t\n\u003e think that is likely– it is more likely people just stop using Bitcoin\n\u003e because transaction confirmation becomes increasingly unreliable.\"\n\nIf you pay high enough fees your transactions will be likely mined in\nthe next block.\nSo this seems to be reducible to the \"fees rising\" concern unless I am\nmissing something.\n\n\u003e So please stop with the over-the-top claims about what \"the other side\"\n\u003e believe, there are enough of those (on both sides of the debate) on reddit.\n\u003e I'd really like to focus on how to move forward, and how best to resolve\n\u003e difficult questions like this in the future.\n\nI think I would have a much better understanding of what \"the other\nside\" thinks if I ever got an answer to a couple of very simple\nquestions I have been repeating ad nausea:\n\n1) If \"not now\" when will it be a good time to let fees rise above zero?\n\n2) When will you consider a size to be too dangerous for centralization?\nIn other words, why 20 GB would have been safe but 21 GB wouldn't have\nbeen (or the respective maximums and respective +1 for each block\nincrease proposal)?\n\nOn Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e What is bad is artificially limiting or centrally controlling the supply of\n\u003e that space.\n\n3) Does this mean that you would be in favor of completely removing\nthe consensus rule that limits mining centralization by imposing an\nartificial (like any other consensus rule) block size maximum?\n\nI've been insistently repeating this question too.\nAdmittedly, it would be a great disappointment if your answer to this\nquestion is \"yes\": that can only mean that either you don't understand\nhow the consensus rule limits mining centralization or that you don't\ncare about mining centralization at all.\n\nIf you really want things to move forward, please, prove it by\nanswering these questions so that we don't have to imagine what the\nanswers are (because what we imagine is probably much worse than your\nactual answers).\nI'm more than willing to stop trying to imagine what \"big block\nadvocates\" think, but I need your answers from the \"big block\nadvocates\".\n\nAsking repeatedly doesn't seem to be effective. So I will answer the\nquestions myself in the worse possible way I think a \"big block\nadvocate\" could answer them.\nFeel free to replace my stupid answers with your own:\n\n----------------------- (FICTION ANSWERS [given the lack of real answers])\n\n3) Does this mean that you would be in favor of completely removing\nthe consensus rule that limits mining centralization by imposing an\nartificial (like any other consensus rule) block size maximum?\n\nYes, I would remove the rule because I don't care about mining centralization.\n\n2) When will you consider a size to be too dangerous for centralization?\nIn other words, why 20 GB would have been safe but 21 GB wouldn't have\nbeen (or the respective maximums and respective +1 for each block\nincrease proposal)?\n\nNever, as said I don't care about mining centralization.\nI thought users and Bitcoin companies would agree with a 20 GB limit\nhardfork with proper lobbying, but I certainly prefer 21 GB.\n\u003eFrom 1 MB to infinity, the bigger the better, always.\n\n1) If \"not now\" when will it be a good time to let fees rise above zero?\n\nNever. Fees are just an excuse, the real goal is making Bitcoin centralized.\n\n------------------------\n\nI'm quite confident that you will have better answers than those.\nPlease, let me know what you think."}