{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub16wtdr5grjycaw37553u5vvlfq09rwxhzz4kler6pz952a7ny6mtqslgem7","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub16wtdr5grjycaw37553u5vvlfq09rwxhzz4kler6pz952a7ny6mtqslgem7","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-14\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Venzen Khaosan \u003cvenzen at mail.bihthai.net\u003e\nwrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e On 08/12/2015 10:35 AM, Elliot Olds via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e It depends on which use case's reliability that you focus on. For\n\u003e \u003e any specific use case of Bitcoin, that use case will be more\n\u003e \u003e reliable with a larger block size (ignoring centralization\n\u003e \u003e effects).\n\u003e\n\u003e I read through your message and see the point you're trying to make,\n\u003e but would like to point out that it is not useful to talk about\n\u003e hypothetical scenarios involving Bitcoin that include the supposition\n\u003e \"ignoring centralization effects\".\n\u003e\n\nPieter was arguing for the existence of an effect on reliability that was\northogonal to centralization risk. When arguing that this effect doesn't\nreally exist, it's appropriate to hold centralization risk constant.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150814/880ef259/attachment.html\u003e"}