rich1.0npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwhttps://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-06 📝 Original message:On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon at jtimon.cc> wrote: > 1) If "not now" when will it be a good time to let fees rise above zero? > Fees are already above zero. See http://gavinandresen.ninja/the-myth-of-not-full-blocks > 2) When will you consider a size to be too dangerous for centralization? > In other words, why 20 GB would have been safe but 21 GB wouldn't have > been (or the respective maximums and respective +1 for each block > increase proposal)? > http://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessarily-mean-more-centralized 3) Does this mean that you would be in favor of completely removing > the consensus rule that limits mining centralization by imposing an > artificial (like any other consensus rule) block size maximum? > I don't believe that the maximum block size has much at all to do with mining centralization, so I don't accept the premise of the question. -- -- Gavin Andresen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150806/a9b951db/attachment-0001.html>