{"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 Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:26:38PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:\n\u003e On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Wladimir noted that 'The original presented intention of block size\n\u003e \u003e\u003e increase was a one-time \"scaling\" to grant time for more decentralizing\n\u003e \u003e\u003e solutions to develop'\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Comments?\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Consensus is that this process is too painful to go through once a year.\n\u003e \u003e I agree.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e If you believe we will need to go through this process once a year, we are\n\u003e not talking about a one-time scaling to grant time for more decentralizing\n\u003e solutions. It means you think we should keep scaling. I don't disagree\n\u003e there - as long as we're talking about scaling as availability of\n\u003e bandwidth, storage and processing power increase, there is no reason\n\u003e Bitcoin's blockchain can't grow proportionally.\n\u003e \n\u003e However, an initial bump 8 MB and the growth rate afterwards seem more like\n\u003e a no-effectively-limit-ever to me.\n\nIn particular, note how this bump is being proposed at a time when\nblockchain space demand is so low that transactions usually cost well\nunder a penny each, a insignificant amount of money for almost all\nuse-cases.\n\n\u003e I fear that the wish of not wanting to deal with - admittedly - a very hard\n\u003e problem, resulted here in throwing away several protections we currently\n\u003e have. And yes, I know you believe 8 MB won't be created immediately. I\n\u003e truly, honestly, do not think so either. But I prefer a system where I\n\u003e don't need to rely on anyone's guesses for the future.\n\nIn that regard Jeff Garzik's proposal of a blocksize increase with a\nminer vote feedback mechanism is a huge improvement over Gavin's\nproposal.\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/20150623/804e5dbb/attachment.sig\u003e"}