rich1.0npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23 📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Robert Learney via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > That’s not exactly what’s happened though, is it Cipher? Gavin put forward > 20Mb then after analysis and discussion has moved to 8Mb, whereas the other > camp of core developers is firmly stuck in the ‘1Mb or bust’ group. His proposals actually end up with 20 GB and 8 GB respectively. I'm not sure if you count me on the ‘1Mb or bust’ group, but I'm not firmly stuck anywhere. I've never said that the block size should never be increased, that it shouldn't change now, that 8 MB is too much or anything like that because I simply don't have the data (and I don't think anybody has it). I invite people to collect that data and I've written a patch to bitcoin to facilitate that task. Do you really think that's an obstructionist attitude? My position could be summarized like this: - We're going to hit the limit tomorrow, and Bitcoin will fail when we do. - I'm not so sure we will hit the limit tomorrow but even accepting the premise, this is a non sequitur. Fees will probably rise, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. A limit that is meaningful in practice must happen eventually, mustn't it? If not now, when are we planning to let that "disaster" happen? - That's too far in the future to worry about it. - Does that mean waiting, say, 4 more subsidy halvings, 8? 10? - Just don't worry about it I'm not opposing to anything, I'm just patiently waiting for some answers that never seem to arrive. If people interpret questions or the fact that when people use fallacious arguments I like to identify the concrete fallacy they're using and state it so publicly (I do it for sport and "against all sides") as "opposition", I don't really think I can do anything about it.