{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-10\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e Executive summary: when networks get over-saturated, they become\n\u003e unreliable.  Unreliable is bad.\n\u003e\n\u003e Unreliable and expensive is extra bad, and that's where we're headed\n\u003e without an increase to the max block size.\n\u003e\n\nI think I see your point of view. You see demand for on-chain transactions\nas a single number that grows with adoption. Once the transaction creation\nrate grows close to the capacity, transactions will become unreliable, and\nyou consider this a bad thing.\n\nAnd if you see Bitcoin as a payment system where guaranteed time to\nconfirmation is a feature, I fully agree. But I think that is an\nunrealistic dream. It only seems reliable because of lack of use. It costs\n1.5 BTC per day to create enough transactions to fill the block chain at\nthe minimum relay fee, and a small multiple of that at actual fee levels.\nAssuming that rate remains similar with an increased block size, that\nremains cheap.\n\nIf you want transactions to be cheap, it will also be cheap to make them\nunreliable.\n\n-- \nPieter\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150810/0fff338b/attachment.html\u003e"}