<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2015-06-27&#xA;📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----&#xA;Hash: SHA256&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;On 27 June 2015 10:39:51 GMT-04:00, Michael Naber &lt;mickeybob at gmail.com&gt; wrote:&#xA;&gt;Compromise: Can we agree that raising the block size to a static 8MB&#xA;&gt;now&#xA;&gt;with a plan to increase it further should demand necessitate except in&#xA;&gt;the&#xA;&gt;special case above is a reasonable path forward?&#xA;&#xA;It&#39;s not a reasonable path forward right now given the lack of testing done with 8MB+ blocks, among many other problems. A way to help make that appear more reasonable would be to setup a 8MB testnet as I suggested, with two years or so of 8MB blocks in history as well as a large UTXO set to test performance characteristics.&#xA;&#xA;Of course, that&#39;ll be a 840GB download - if that&#39;s unreasonable you might want to ask why 8MB blocks are reasonable...&#xA;-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----&#xA;&#xA;iQE9BAEBCAAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJVjr9n&#xA;AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lnc47AIAIIwu4maaJs4pAKpK00jQnhPNIQ8LPvijD/8vvyugA1z&#xA;OLxlRrn8zs7JPFbxWOAzK2qzT1RksSd0gbXqWm/Saqk9CAG5LBp7Oq0HAVE23XYt&#xA;6BvyhjyhYaZjDrv+SZvlSjdl5xfpDNPMIXMi7XblKD9hm1GIUSVIYAOinOSVIy0B&#xA;HlKyn/xc4MaO8DuzQcs0vsNMudVQFLMOLjMWz/7iv41NnB/Ujjzv/6845Z1g7Opf&#xA;d5AfxhPHZixshqav/lF7ly7xQwSZZpoJCyFdtzCNG47EQmFYY9e22uy1KVzS7Zeo&#xA;qYPi3KRx5+vFtHHJMDYG5EIMTwI4l/4+lY/Sd0CFWss=&#xA;=0IOS&#xA;-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----</html></oembed>