{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-10\n📝 Original message:On Aug 10, 2015 4:12 PM, \"Gavin Andresen\" \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Jorge Timón \u003cjtimon at jtimon.cc\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, \"Gavin Andresen\" \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Executive summary: when networks get over-saturated, they become\nunreliable.  Unreliable is bad.\n\u003e\n\u003e Unreliable and expensive is extra bad, and that's where we're headed\nwithout an increase to the max block size.\n\nI'm not trying to be obstinate but I seriously can't see how they are\ndifferent.\nWhen you say unreliable I think you mean \"unreliable for cheap fee\ntransactions\". Transactions with the highest fees will always confirm\nreliably. For example, a 1 btc fee tx will probably always confirm very\nreliably even if capacity never increases and demands increases a lot.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150810/7a3b9433/attachment.html\u003e"}