rich1.0npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwhttps://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-10 📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Jorge Timón <jtimon at jtimon.cc> wrote: > > On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and > yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is one > of the reasons. > > What are the other reasons? > > > I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do resource planning > and have seen what happens when networks run out of capacity very seriously. > > When "the network runs out of capacity" (when we hit the limit) do we > expect anything to happen apart from minimum market fees rising (above > zero)? > Obviously any consequences of fees rising are included in this concern. > It is frustrating to answer questions that we answered months ago, especially when I linked to these in response to your recent "increase advocates say that not increasing the max block size will KILL BITCOIN" false claim: http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32 Executive summary: when networks get over-saturated, they become unreliable. Unreliable is bad. Unreliable and expensive is extra bad, and that's where we're headed without an increase to the max block size. RE: the recent thread about "better deal with that type of thing now rather than later" : exactly the same argument can be made about changes needed to support a larger block size-- "better to do that now than to do that later." I don't think either of those arguments are very convincing. -- -- Gavin Andresen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150810/fe3f5aaa/attachment-0001.html>