{"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:2015-06-23\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Wladimir noted that 'The original presented intention of block size\n\u003e\u003e increase was a one-time \"scaling\" to grant time for more decentralizing\n\u003e\u003e solutions to develop'\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Comments?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Consensus is that this process is too painful to go through once a year.\n\u003e I agree.\n\u003e\n\nIf you believe we will need to go through this process once a year, we are\nnot talking about a one-time scaling to grant time for more decentralizing\nsolutions. It means you think we should keep scaling. I don't disagree\nthere - as long as we're talking about scaling as availability of\nbandwidth, storage and processing power increase, there is no reason\nBitcoin's blockchain can't grow proportionally.\n\nHowever, an initial bump 8 MB and the growth rate afterwards seem more like\na no-effectively-limit-ever to me.\n\nI fear that the wish of not wanting to deal with - admittedly - a very hard\nproblem, resulted here in throwing away several protections we currently\nhave. And yes, I know you believe 8 MB won't be created immediately. I\ntruly, honestly, do not think so either. But I prefer a system where I\ndon't need to rely on anyone's guesses for the future.\n\n-- \nPieter\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150623/a2560dc8/attachment.html\u003e"}