rich1.0npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydhttps://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23 📝 Original message:> > You complained about the lack of quantitative analysis being used, I gave > it to you. There's nothing "negative" about displaying data which doesn't > completely back up what your position is, I made a sensible conclusion > based on the facts I have in front of me. Ignoring the information I > collected and presented for you is incredibly childish. > He hasn't ignored you, and he wasn't responding to your email specifically but rather the general attitude displayed in this forum for the last several months (and I'd argue the last year or so). Your data is interesting but ultimately tell us what we already know - that the next bottleneck after the hard coded limit could easily be propagation speed. The solution is likely to be a better protocol. Matt's custom network already has optimised things, rolling some of those ideas into the P2P protocol may be a good place to start, or something fancier like IBLTs. Regardless, the *next* bottleneck is not the protocol, it's the hard cap. So the conclusion remains unchanged: Bitcoin must grow, and solutions for scaling it up will be found as the need arises. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150723/23883077/attachment.html>