{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-27\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA256\n\n\n\nOn 27 June 2015 10:39:51 GMT-04:00, Michael Naber \u003cmickeybob at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003eCompromise: Can we agree that raising the block size to a static 8MB\n\u003enow\n\u003ewith a plan to increase it further should demand necessitate except in\n\u003ethe\n\u003especial case above is a reasonable path forward?\n\nIt's not a reasonable path forward right now given the lack of testing done with 8MB+ blocks, among many other problems. A way to help make that appear more reasonable would be to setup a 8MB testnet as I suggested, with two years or so of 8MB blocks in history as well as a large UTXO set to test performance characteristics.\n\nOf course, that'll be a 840GB download - if that's unreasonable you might want to ask why 8MB blocks are reasonable...\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\n\niQE9BAEBCAAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJVjr9n\nAAoJEMCF8hzn9Lnc47AIAIIwu4maaJs4pAKpK00jQnhPNIQ8LPvijD/8vvyugA1z\nOLxlRrn8zs7JPFbxWOAzK2qzT1RksSd0gbXqWm/Saqk9CAG5LBp7Oq0HAVE23XYt\n6BvyhjyhYaZjDrv+SZvlSjdl5xfpDNPMIXMi7XblKD9hm1GIUSVIYAOinOSVIy0B\nHlKyn/xc4MaO8DuzQcs0vsNMudVQFLMOLjMWz/7iv41NnB/Ujjzv/6845Z1g7Opf\nd5AfxhPHZixshqav/lF7ly7xQwSZZpoJCyFdtzCNG47EQmFYY9e22uy1KVzS7Zeo\nqYPi3KRx5+vFtHHJMDYG5EIMTwI4l/4+lY/Sd0CFWss=\n=0IOS\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----"}