{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-01\n📝 Original message:RE: going to the public:\n\nI started pushing privately for SOMETHING, ANYTHING to be done, or at the\nvery least for there to be some coherent plan besides \"wait and see\" back\nin February.\n\nAs for it being unhealthy for me to write the code that I think should be\nwritten and asking people to run it:\n\nOk. What would you suggest I do? I believe scaling up is the number one\npriority right now. I think core devs SHOULD be taking time to solve it,\nbecause I think the uncertainty of how it will be solved (or if it will be\nsolved) is bad for Bitcoin.\n\nI think working on things like fixing transaction malleability is great...\nbut the reason to work on that is to enable smart contracts and all sorts\nof other interesting new uses of the blockchain. But if we're stuck with\n1MB blocks then there won't be room for all of those interesting new uses\non the blockchain.\n\nOthers disagree, and have the advantage of status-quo : if nothing is done,\nthey get what they want.\n\nBased on some comments I've seen, I think there is also concern that \"my\nown personal network/computer connection might not be able to handle more\ntransaction volume.\" That is NOT a good reason to limit scalability, but I\nthink it is clouding the judgement of many of the core contributors who\nstarted contributing as a spare-time hobby from their homes (where maybe\nthey have crappy DSL connections).\n\n\nRE: decentralization:\n\nI think this is a red-herring. I'll quote something I said on reddit\nyesterday:\n\n\"I don't believe a 20MB max size will increase centralization to any\nsignificant degree.\n\nSee\nhttp://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessarily-mean-more-centralized\n\nand http://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners\n\nAnd I think we will have a lot LESS centralization of payments via services\nlike Coinbase (or hubs in some future StrawPay/Lightning network) if the\nbitcoin network can directly handle more payment volume.\n\nThe centralization trade-offs seems very clear to me, and I think the \"big\nblocks mean more centralized\" arguments are either just wrong or are\nexaggerated or ignore the tradeoff with payment centralization (I think\nthat is a lot more important for privacy and censorship resistance).\"\n\n\nRE: incentives for off-chain solutions:\n\nI'll quote myself again from\nhttp://gavinandresen.ninja/it-must-be-done-but-is-not-a-panacea :\n\n\"The “layer 2” services that are being built on top of the blockchain are\nabsolutely necessary to get nearly instant real-time payments,\nmicropayments and high volume machine-to-machine payments, to pick just\nthree examples. The ten-minute settlement time of blocks on the network is\nnot fast enough for those problems, and it will be the ten minute block\ninterval that drives development of those off-chain innovations more than\nthe total number of transactions supported.\"\n\nOn Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Jérôme Legoupil \u003cjjlegoupil at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e If during the \"1MB bumpy period\" something goes wrong, consensus among the\n\u003e community would be reached easily if necessary.\n\u003e\n\nThat is the problem: this will be a \"frog in boiling water\" problem. I\nbelieve there will be no sudden crisis-- instead, transactions will just\nget increasingly unreliable and expensive, driving more and more people\naway from Bitcoin towards... I don't know what. Some less expensive, more\nreliable, probably more-centralized solution.\n\nThe Gavin 20MB proposal is compromising Bitcoin's long-term security in an\n\u003e irreversible way, for gaining short-term better user experience.\n\u003e\n\nIf by long-term security you mean \"will transaction fees be high enough to\npay for enough hashing power to secure the network if there are bigger\nblocks\" I've written about that:\nhttp://gavinandresen.ninja/block-size-and-miner-fees-again\n\n\nIf you mean something else, then please be specific.\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150601/4417e2e4/attachment.html\u003e"}