rich1.0npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwhttps://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07 📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com> wrote: > I guess my question (and perhaps that's what Jorge is after): do you feel > that blocks should be increased in response to (or for fear of) such a > scenario. > 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. 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. And if so, if that is a reason for increase now, won't it be a reason for > an increase later as well? It is my impression that your answer is yes, > that this is why you want to increase the block size quickly and > significantly, but correct me if I'm wrong. > Sure, it might be a reason for an increase later. Here's my message to in-the-future Bitcoin engineers: you should consider raising the maximum block size if needed and you think the benefits of doing so (like increased adoption or lower transaction fees or increased reliability) outweigh the costs (like higher operating costs for full-nodes or the disruption caused by ANY consensus rule change). -- -- Gavin Andresen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150807/8f8f55fa/attachment.html>