rich1.0npub1uu2fve28mkg68uequseraz8gee7qg64733lr9r2g4c0xs5pmqnuslr4rpfhttps://nostr.ae/npub1uu2fve28mkg68uequseraz8gee7qg64733lr9r2g4c0xs5pmqnuslr4rpfnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-04 📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/04/2015 08:28 PM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On 4 August 2015 at 14:13, Jorge Timón <jtimon at jtimon.cc > <mailto:jtimon at jtimon.cc>> wrote: > > 2) It doesn't matter who is to blame about the current > centralization: the fact remains that the blocksize maximum is the > only** consensus rule to limit mining centralization. > > > Repeating a claim ad-nauseum doesn't make it necessarily true. A > block size limit won't prevent miners in the future from buying > each other out. > It plays both ways, the technical list requires a proof of concept and simulation upon which to base judgment going forward, else we'll just be talking out our backsides (like certain people) without making any progress. The tools for simulation exist: Jorge Timon created a variable blocksize regtest PR here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6382 No-one needs to postulate what different blocksizes imply - anyone can run a simulation and demonstrate what they're talking about. > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing > list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVwMFEAAoJEGwAhlQc8H1mo/EH/2USw5YUL/7sgFAsjpXdpcS+ 9XZ0M0AK4PNSo36GBBhjaF9rRa76FtK6Vt9nLe+7lgYmeHSkcQ65OLKfP47hCnsz 9XfVR0n7nv+0TqHQKPcjm+WNBoVndKRHGEwNQoQw//bAmO4LOcmQCMXAkk9RfaKm 4olay0nUmAFNqh/7wVOunOUFMJNIRpy/neAlFYxRAHBIJLcc0KQNiLqAHbzwPDZq e9kLjtIusWwLUCgHFvox01bIEOx+VYIxzjMVRz1MNGyRGwDweg7zk54WA48nYwmx 70Ggdde9kiLytPDwB2ey/IRE4mv/4KS2zivJy36XAsjPExTNeGKxGeGfBqXNwSI= =aya4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----