rich1.0Jameson Lopp [ARCHIVE] (npub1gh…akqmn)https://nostr.ae/npub1ghgfr3aumwuxwnwghywxpaejxpf6k9pjcnyg9lfdnztlu5pwa0ksyakqmnnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23 📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Jul 23, 2015, at 9:28 AM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > I'd really like to move from "IMPOSSIBLE because... (electrum hasn't been > optimized > (by the way: you should run on SSDs, LevelDB isn't designed for spinning > disks), > what if the network is attacked? (attacked HOW???), current p2p network > is using > the simplest, stupidest possible block propagation algorithm...)" > > ... to "lets work together and work through the problems and scale it up." > > > Let’s be absolutely clear about one thing - block size increases are *not* > about scaling the network. Can we please stop promoting this falsehood? It > doesn’t matter by what number we multiply the block size…we can NEVER > satisfy the full demand if we insist on every single transaction from every > single person everywhere in the world being on the blockchain…it’s just > absurd. > > Increasing block size only temporarily addresses one significant issue - > how to postpone having to deal with transaction fees, which by design, are > how the cost of operating the Bitcoin network (which is already very > expensive) is supposed to be paid for ultimately. Suggesting we avoid > dealing with this constitutes a new economic policy - dealing with it is > the default economic policy we’ve all known about from the beginning…so > please stop claiming otherwise. > > Larger block sizes don't scale the network, they merely increase how much load we allow the network to bear. On the flip side, the scalability proposals will still require larger blocks if we are ever to support anything close to resembling "mainstream" usage. This is not an either/or proposition - we clearly need both. - Jameson > On Jul 23, 2015, at 9:50 AM, cipher anthem via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Why not help on a project that actually seems to offer great scalability > like the lightning network? There have been great progress there. > > > Exactly. There’s been tremendous progress here in addressing scalability, > yet I don’t see you participating in that discussion, Gavin. > > On Jul 23, 2015, at 5:17 AM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > But it seems to me that the "not now side" has no centralization > concerns at all and their true position is "not ever hit the blocksize > limit", that's the only explanation I can find to their lack of > answers to the "when do you think we should allow users to notice that > there's a limit in the blocksize to guarantee that the system can be > decentralized?". > > > I agree with what you’re saying, Jorge…but It’s even worse than that. The > July 4th fork illustrated that the security model of the network itself > could be at risk from the increasing costs in validation causing people to > rely on others to validate for them…and increasing block size only makes > the problem worse. > > - Eric Lombrozo > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150723/a658ea27/attachment-0001.html>