rich1.0npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwhttps://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-07-30 📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com> wrote: > Let's scale the block size gradually over time, according to technological > growth. Yes, lets do that-- that is EXACTLY what BIP101 intends to do. With the added belt&suspenders reality check of miners, who won't produce blocks too big for whatever technology they're using. ------- So what do you think the scalability road map should look like? Should we wait to hard fork until Blockstream Elements is ready for deploying on the main network, and then have One Grand Hardfork that introduces all the scalability work you guys have been working on (like Segregated Witness and Lightning)? Or is the plan to avoid controversy by people voluntarily moving their bitcoin to a sidechain where all this scaling-up innovation happens? No plan for how to scale up is the worst of all possible worlds, and the lack of a direction or plan(s) is my main objection to the current status quo. And any plan that requires inventing brand-new technology is going to be riskier than scaling up what we already have and understand, which is why I think it is worthwhile to scale up what we have IN ADDITION TO working on great projects like Segregated Witness and Lightning. -- -- Gavin Andresen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150730/d7fc3a50/attachment.html>