rich1.0npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rhttps://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-23 📝 Original message:On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote: > >> Wladimir noted that 'The original presented intention of block size >> increase was a one-time "scaling" to grant time for more decentralizing >> solutions to develop' >> >> Comments? >> > > Consensus is that this process is too painful to go through once a year. > I agree. > If you believe we will need to go through this process once a year, we are not talking about a one-time scaling to grant time for more decentralizing solutions. It means you think we should keep scaling. I don't disagree there - as long as we're talking about scaling as availability of bandwidth, storage and processing power increase, there is no reason Bitcoin's blockchain can't grow proportionally. However, an initial bump 8 MB and the growth rate afterwards seem more like a no-effectively-limit-ever to me. I fear that the wish of not wanting to deal with - admittedly - a very hard problem, resulted here in throwing away several protections we currently have. And yes, I know you believe 8 MB won't be created immediately. I truly, honestly, do not think so either. But I prefer a system where I don't need to rely on anyone's guesses for the future. -- Pieter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150623/a2560dc8/attachment.html>