{"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:2015-07-30\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Pieter Wuille \u003cpieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e Let's scale the block size gradually over time, according to technological\n\u003e growth.\n\n\nYes, lets do that-- that is EXACTLY what BIP101 intends to do.\n\nWith the added belt\u0026suspenders reality check of miners, who won't produce\nblocks too big for whatever technology they're using.\n\n-------\n\nSo what do you think the scalability road map should look like? Should we\nwait to hard fork until Blockstream Elements is ready for deploying on the\nmain network, and then have One Grand Hardfork that introduces all the\nscalability work you guys have been working on (like Segregated Witness and\nLightning)?\n\nOr is the plan to avoid controversy by people voluntarily moving their\nbitcoin to a sidechain where all this scaling-up innovation happens?\n\nNo plan for how to scale up is the worst of all possible worlds, and the\nlack of a direction or plan(s) is my main objection to the current status\nquo.\n\nAnd any plan that requires inventing brand-new technology is going to be\nriskier than scaling up what we already have and understand, which is why I\nthink it is worthwhile to scale up what we have IN ADDITION TO working on\ngreat projects like Segregated Witness and Lightning.\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150730/d7fc3a50/attachment.html\u003e"}