{"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:2015-08-07\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille \u003cpieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e I guess my question (and perhaps that's what Jorge is after): do you feel\n\u003e that blocks should be increased in response to (or for fear of) such a\n\u003e scenario.\n\u003e\n\nI think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and\nyes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is one\nof the reasons.\n\nI take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do resource planning and\nhave seen what happens when networks run out of capacity very seriously.\n\n\nAnd if so, if that is a reason for increase now, won't it be a reason for\n\u003e an increase later as well? It is my impression that your answer is yes,\n\u003e that this is why you want to increase the block size quickly and\n\u003e significantly, but correct me if I'm wrong.\n\u003e\n\nSure, it might be a reason for an increase later. Here's my message to\nin-the-future Bitcoin engineers:  you should consider raising the maximum\nblock size if needed and you think the benefits of doing so (like increased\nadoption or lower transaction fees or increased reliability) outweigh the\ncosts (like higher operating costs for full-nodes or the disruption caused\nby ANY consensus rule change).\n\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150807/8f8f55fa/attachment.html\u003e"}