{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub13rv3raner7hu6npy7vxxvdswdapae65pnw8jjs4c80wtp2nmg4xq9cy5l4","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub13rv3raner7hu6npy7vxxvdswdapae65pnw8jjs4c80wtp2nmg4xq9cy5l4","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-11\n📝 Original message:Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensus\nnetwork -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware\nof and agree upon every transaction. Constraining Bitcoin capacity below\nthe limits of technology will only push users seeking to participate in a\nglobal consensus network to other solutions which have adequate capacity,\nsuch as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not\nmeet requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensus,\nbecause they are not global consensus networks, since all participating\nnodes are not aware of all transactions.\n\n\n\n\nOn Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Jorge Timón \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e On Aug 11, 2015 12:14 AM, \"Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e On Monday 10. August 2015 13.55.03 Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Gavin, I interpret the absence of response to these questions as a\n\u003e \u003e \u003e sign that everybody agrees that  there's no other reason to increase\n\u003e \u003e \u003e the consensus block size other than to avoid minimum market fees from\n\u003e \u003e \u003e rising (above zero).\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Feel free to correct that notion at any time by answering the\n\u003e \u003e \u003e questions yourself.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e In fact if any other \"big block size advocate\" thinks there's more\n\u003e \u003e \u003e reason I would like to hear their reasons too.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e See my various emails in the last hour.\n\u003e\n\u003e I've read them. I have read gavin's blog posts as well, several times.\n\u003e I still don't see what else can we fear from not increasing the size apart\n\u003e from fees maybe rising and making some problems that need to be solved\n\u003e rewardless of the size more visible (like a dumb unbounded mempool design).\n\u003e\n\u003e This discussion is frustrating for everyone. I could also say \"This have\n\u003e been explained many times\" and similar things, but that's not productive.\n\u003e I'm not trying to be obstinate, please, answer what else is to fear or\n\u003e admit that all your feas are just potential consequences of rising fees.\n\u003e\n\u003e With the risk of sounding condescending or aggressive...Really, is not\n\u003e that hard to answer questions directly and succinctly. We should all be\n\u003e friends with clarity. Only fear, uncertainty and doubt are enemies of\n\u003e clarity. But you guys on the \"bigger blocks side\" don't want to spread fud,\n\u003e do you?\n\u003e Please, prove paranoid people like me wrong on this point, for the good of\n\u003e this discussion. I really don't know how else to ask this without getting a\n\u003e link to something I have already read as a response.\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/20150811/ec6892eb/attachment.html\u003e"}