{"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:2015-08-06\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jorge Timón \u003cjtimon at jtimon.cc\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e 1) If \"not now\" when will it be a good time to let fees rise above zero?\n\u003e\n\nFees are already above zero. See\nhttp://gavinandresen.ninja/the-myth-of-not-full-blocks\n\n\n\u003e 2) When will you consider a size to be too dangerous for centralization?\n\u003e In other words, why 20 GB would have been safe but 21 GB wouldn't have\n\u003e been (or the respective maximums and respective +1 for each block\n\u003e increase proposal)?\n\u003e\n\nhttp://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessarily-mean-more-centralized\n\n3) Does this mean that you would be in favor of completely removing\n\u003e the consensus rule that limits mining centralization by imposing an\n\u003e artificial (like any other consensus rule) block size maximum?\n\u003e\n\nI don't believe that the maximum block size has much at all to do with\nmining centralization, so I don't accept the premise of the question.\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150806/a9b951db/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}