rich1.0npub13rv3raner7hu6npy7vxxvdswdapae65pnw8jjs4c80wtp2nmg4xq9cy5l4https://nostr.ae/npub13rv3raner7hu6npy7vxxvdswdapae65pnw8jjs4c80wtp2nmg4xq9cy5l4njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-11 📝 Original message:Re: "In my opinion the main source of disagreement is that one: how the maximum block size limits centralization." I generally agree with that, but I would add that centralization is only a goal insofar as it serves things like reliability, transaction integrity, capacity, and accessibility. More broadly: how do you think that moving the block size from 1MB to 8MB would materially impact these things? Re: "That's why I cannot understand the urgency to rise the maximum size." This issue is urgent because the difference between bitcoin being a success and it being forgotten hinges on it being "better money" than other money. If people want a money that can process lots and lots of transactions at low cost, they're going to get it so long as technology can give it to them. While it's not critical we raise the block size this very moment since we're not hitting the capacity wall right now, based on the way growth spikes in Bitcoin have occurred in the past we, may hit that capacity wall soon and suddenly. And the moment we do, then Bitcoin may no longer be "better money" since there's a big opportunity for other money with higher throughput and lower fees to take its place. On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Jorge Timón <jtimon at jtimon.cc> wrote: > > On Aug 11, 2015 8:55 PM, "Michael Naber" <mickeybob at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > It generally doesn't matter that every node validate your coffee > transaction, and those transactions can and will probably be moved onto > offchain solutions in order to avoid paying the cost of achieving global > consensus. But you still don't get to set the cost of global consensus > artificially. Market forces will ensure that supply will meet demand there, > so if there is demand for access to global consensus, and technology exists > to meet that demand at a cost of one cent per transaction -- or whatever > the technology-limited cost of global consensus happens to be -- then > that's what the market will supply. > > Assuming we maintain any block size maximum consensus rule, the market > will adapt to whatever maximum size is imposed by the consensus rules. > For example, with the current demand and the current consensus block size > maximum, the market has settled on a minimum fee of zero satoshis per > transaction. That's why I cannot understand the urgency to rise the maximum > size. > > In any case, yhe consensus maximum shouldn't be based on current or > projected demand, only on centralization concerns, which is what the > consensus rule serves for (to limit centralization). > For example, Gavin advocates for 20 MB because he is not worried about how > that could increase centralization because he believes it won't. > I can't agree with that because I believe 20 MB could make mining > centralization (and centralization in general) much worse. > > But if I have to chose between 2 "centralization safe" sizes, sure, the > bigger the better, why not. > In my opinion the main source of disagreement is that one: how the maximum > block size limits centralization. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150811/214ee358/attachment.html>