{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e You complained about the lack of quantitative analysis being used, I gave\n\u003e it to you. There's nothing \"negative\" about displaying data which doesn't\n\u003e completely back up what your position is, I made a sensible conclusion\n\u003e based on the facts I have in front of me. Ignoring the information I\n\u003e collected and presented for you is incredibly childish.\n\u003e\n\nHe hasn't ignored you, and he wasn't responding to your email specifically\nbut rather the general attitude displayed in this forum for the last\nseveral months (and I'd argue the last year or so).\n\nYour data is interesting but ultimately tell us what we already know - that\nthe next bottleneck after the hard coded limit could easily be propagation\nspeed. The solution is likely to be a better protocol. Matt's custom\nnetwork already has optimised things, rolling some of those ideas into the\nP2P protocol may be a good place to start, or something fancier like IBLTs.\n\nRegardless, the *next* bottleneck is not the protocol, it's the hard cap.\n\nSo the conclusion remains unchanged: Bitcoin must grow, and solutions for\nscaling it up will be found as the need arises.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150723/23883077/attachment.html\u003e"}