{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krq","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krq","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23\n📝 Original message:\u003e On Jul 23, 2015, at 4:42 PM, Benedict Chan \u003cbencxr at fragnetics.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e Scaling the network will come in the form of a combination of many\n\u003e optimizations. Just because we do not know for sure how to eventually\n\u003e serve 7 billion people does not mean we should make decisions on\n\u003e global validation that impact our ability to serve the current set of\n\u003e users.\n\nAgreed. But I believe the economic and security arguments I gave regarding fees and incentives still hold and are largely separate from the scalability issue. Please correct me if I overlooked something.\n\n\n\u003e Also, blocking a change because it's \"more important to address issues\n\u003e such as...\" other improvements will further slow down the discussion.\n\u003e I believe an increase will not prevent the development of other\n\u003e improvements that we need - in contrast, the sooner we can get over\n\u003e the limit (which, as you agree, needs to be changed at some point),\n\u003e the sooner we can get back to work.\n\nAn increase in block size at this time will exacerbate security concerns around nodes relying on other nodes to validate (particularly miners and wallets). It’s not really a matter of having limited developer resources that need to be budgeted, as you seem to suggest.\n\nRegarding developments on properly handling fees, there must exist the economic need for it before there’s an earnest effort to solve it. Increasing the block size right now will, in all likelihood, delay this effort. I’d much prefer to first let the fee market evolve because it’s a crucial component to the protocol’s design and its security model…and so we can get a better sense for fee economics. Then we might be able to figure out better approaches to block size changes in the future that makes sense economically…perhaps with mechanisms that can dynamically adjust it to reflect resource availability and network load.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150723/7bcddf71/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 842 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150723/7bcddf71/attachment.sig\u003e"}