rich1.0npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-10 📝 Original message:On Aug 10, 2015 4:12 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Jorge Timón <jtimon at jtimon.cc> wrote: >> >> >> On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote: > Executive summary: when networks get over-saturated, they become unreliable. Unreliable is bad. > > Unreliable and expensive is extra bad, and that's where we're headed without an increase to the max block size. I'm not trying to be obstinate but I seriously can't see how they are different. When you say unreliable I think you mean "unreliable for cheap fee transactions". Transactions with the highest fees will always confirm reliably. For example, a 1 btc fee tx will probably always confirm very reliably even if capacity never increases and demands increases a lot. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150810/7a3b9433/attachment.html>