{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"Jameson Lopp [ARCHIVE] (npub1gh…akqmn)","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1ghgfr3aumwuxwnwghywxpaejxpf6k9pjcnyg9lfdnztlu5pwa0ksyakqmn","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e On Jul 23, 2015, at 9:28 AM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e I'd really like to move from \"IMPOSSIBLE because...  (electrum hasn't been\n\u003e optimized\n\u003e (by the way: you should run on SSDs, LevelDB isn't designed for spinning\n\u003e disks),\n\u003e what if the network is attacked?  (attacked HOW???), current p2p network\n\u003e is using\n\u003e the simplest, stupidest possible block propagation algorithm...)\"\n\u003e\n\u003e ... to \"lets work together and work through the problems and scale it up.\"\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Let’s be absolutely clear about one thing - block size increases are *not*\n\u003e about scaling the network. Can we please stop promoting this falsehood? It\n\u003e doesn’t matter by what number we multiply the block size…we can NEVER\n\u003e satisfy the full demand if we insist on every single transaction from every\n\u003e single person everywhere in the world being on the blockchain…it’s just\n\u003e absurd.\n\u003e\n\u003e\nIncreasing block size only temporarily addresses one significant issue -\n\u003e how to postpone having to deal with transaction fees, which by design, are\n\u003e how the cost of operating the Bitcoin network (which is already very\n\u003e expensive) is supposed to be paid for ultimately. Suggesting we avoid\n\u003e dealing with this constitutes a new economic policy - dealing with it is\n\u003e the default economic policy we’ve all known about from the beginning…so\n\u003e please stop claiming otherwise.\n\u003e\n\u003e\nLarger block sizes don't scale the network, they merely increase how much\nload we allow the network to bear. On the flip side, the scalability\nproposals will still require larger blocks if we are ever to support\nanything close to resembling \"mainstream\" usage. This is not an either/or\nproposition - we clearly need both.\n\n- Jameson\n\n\u003e On Jul 23, 2015, at 9:50 AM, cipher anthem via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e Why not help on a project that actually seems to offer great scalability\n\u003e like the lightning network? There have been great progress there.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Exactly. There’s been tremendous progress here in addressing scalability,\n\u003e yet I don’t see you participating in that discussion, Gavin.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Jul 23, 2015, at 5:17 AM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e But it seems to me that the \"not now side\" has no centralization\n\u003e concerns at all and their true position is \"not ever hit the blocksize\n\u003e limit\", that's the only explanation I can find to their lack of\n\u003e answers to the \"when do you think we should allow users to notice that\n\u003e there's a limit in the blocksize to guarantee that the system can be\n\u003e decentralized?\".\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e I agree with what you’re saying, Jorge…but It’s even worse than that. The\n\u003e July 4th fork illustrated that the security model of the network itself\n\u003e could be at risk from the increasing costs in validation causing people to\n\u003e rely on others to validate for them…and increasing block size only makes\n\u003e the problem worse.\n\u003e\n\u003e - Eric Lombrozo\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150723/a658ea27/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}