{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-07-30\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Pieter Wuille \u003cpieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Let's scale the block size gradually over time, according to\n\u003e\u003e technological growth.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Yes, lets do that-- that is EXACTLY what BIP101 intends to do.\n\u003e\n\nOh come on. Immediately increasing to 8 MB while miners currently don't\neven seem to bother validating blocks?\n\nWith the added belt\u0026suspenders reality check of miners, who won't produce\n\u003e blocks too big for whatever technology they're using.\n\u003e\n\nOr a future where miners are even more centralized than now, which avoids\nall problems relay and propagation speed has?\n\n\n\u003e So what do you think the scalability road map should look like? Should we\n\u003e wait to hard fork until Blockstream Elements is ready for deploying on the\n\u003e main network, and then have One Grand Hardfork that introduces all the\n\u003e scalability work you guys have been working on (like Segregated Witness and\n\u003e Lightning)?\n\u003e\n\nLightning does not require a hard fork, except that larger blocks would be\nvery useful for its bulk settlements.\n\nOr is the plan to avoid controversy by people voluntarily moving their\n\u003e bitcoin to a sidechain where all this scaling-up innovation happens?\n\u003e\n\nAs I have said a dozen times now: sidechains are a mechanism for\nexperimentation. Maybe through them we will discover technology that allows\nbetter on-chain and/or off-chain scalability, but people moving their coins\nto a sidechain has far worse security tradeoffs than just increasing the\nBitcoin blockchain.\n\nNo plan for how to scale up is the worst of all possible worlds, and the\n\u003e lack of a direction or plan(s) is my main objection to the current status\n\u003e quo.\n\u003e\n\nOk, here is a proposal I was working on. I'd like to have had more time,\nbut I agree a direction/plan are needed to align expectations for the\nfuture:  https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6.\n\n\n\u003e And any plan that requires inventing brand-new technology is going to be\n\u003e riskier than scaling up what we already have and understand, which is why I\n\u003e think it is worthwhile to scale up what we have IN ADDITION TO working on\n\u003e great projects like Segregated Witness and Lightning.\n\u003e\n\nAnd I think that the reason that so many people care about this suddenly is\nbecause of a fear that somehow the current block size \"won't be enough\".\nBitcoin has utility at any block size, and perhaps more at some values for\nit than others. Talking about \"not enough\" is acknowledging that we really\nbelieve the block size should scale to demand, while it is the other way\naround.\n\n-- \nPieter\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150730/db66bf01/attachment.html\u003e"}