{"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:2015-06-23\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 02:18:19PM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:\n\u003e ==Rationale==\n\u003e \n\u003e The initial size of 8,000,000 bytes was chosen after testing the current\n\u003e reference implementation code with larger block sizes and receiving\n\u003e feedback from miners stuck behind bandwidth-constrained networks (in\n\u003e particular, Chinese miners behind the Great Firewall of China).\n\u003e \n\u003e The doubling interval was chosen based on long-term growth trends for CPU\n\u003e power, storage, and Internet bandwidth. The 20-year limit was chosen\n\u003e because exponential growth cannot continue forever.\n\nWladimir noted that 'The original presented intention of block size\nincrease was a one-time \"scaling\" to grant time for more decentralizing\nsolutions to develop'\n\nComments?\n\nIn particular, if bandwidth scaling doesn't go according to your plan,\ne.g. the exponential exponent is too large, perhaps due to technological\ngrowth not keeping pace, or the political realities of actual bandwidth\ndeployment making theoretical technological growth irrelevant, what\nmechanism will prevent centralization? (if any)\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n000000000000000008c0be16e152f86ab3a271a13c3f41c56228d72990abf7bd\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150623/2c0ea51b/attachment.sig\u003e"}