📅 Original date posted:2015-08-06 📝 Original message:On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at ...

Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] /

npub1tje…tl6r

2023-06-07 17:32:33

in reply to nevent1q…hqca

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-06
📝 Original message:On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Jorge Timón <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> This is a much more reasonable position. I wish this had been starting
>> point of this discussion instead of "the block size limit must be
>> increased as soon as possible or bitcoin will fail".
>>
>
> It REALLY doesn't help the debate when you say patently false statements
> like that.
>
> My first blog post on this issue is here:
> http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent
>
> ... and I NEVER say "Bitcoin will fail". I say:
>
> "If the number of transactions waiting gets large enough, the end result
> will be an over-saturated network, busy doing nothing productive. I don’t
> think that is likely– it is more likely people just stop using Bitcoin
> because transaction confirmation becomes increasingly unreliable."
>

But you seem to consider that a bad thing. Maybe saying that you're
claiming that this equals Bitcoin failing is an exaggeration, but you do
believe that evolving towards an ecosystem where there is competition for
block space is a bad thing, right?

I don't agree that "Not everyone is able to use the block chain for every
use case" is the same thing as "People stop using Bitcoin". People are
already not using it for every use case.

Here is what my proposed BIP says: "No hard forking change that relaxes the
block size limit can be guaranteed to provide enough space for every
possible demand - or even any particular demand - unless strong
centralization of the mining ecosystem is expected. Because of that, the
development of a fee market and the evolution towards an ecosystem that is
able to cope with block space competition should be considered healthy."

--
Pieter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150806/aff56c38/attachment.html>;

Author Public Key

npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 17:32:33

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "ad42ebb9c812ceb3c9293cc0c2e79d92a5c92d021a08cadc93920bf7f604aa72", "pubkey": "5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6", "created_at": 1686159153, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "4e8415b0ac5f4356e0ce0ebf2c3f4ee3b61a33a2b0c1bc226931c06144bfe5a4", "", "root" ], [ "e", "68076aad0c1131555f123a51f5fc6416d99d8e952793233fb15b3158ad7072c5", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-06\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Jorge Timón \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e This is a much more reasonable position. I wish this had been starting\n\u003e\u003e point of this discussion instead of \"the block size limit must be\n\u003e\u003e increased as soon as possible or bitcoin will fail\".\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e It REALLY doesn't help the debate when you say patently false statements\n\u003e like that.\n\u003e\n\u003e My first blog post on this issue is here:\n\u003e http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent\n\u003e\n\u003e ... and I NEVER say \"Bitcoin will fail\". I say:\n\u003e\n\u003e \"If the number of transactions waiting gets large enough, the end result\n\u003e will be an over-saturated network, busy doing nothing productive. I don’t\n\u003e think that is likely– it is more likely people just stop using Bitcoin\n\u003e because transaction confirmation becomes increasingly unreliable.\"\n\u003e\n\nBut you seem to consider that a bad thing. Maybe saying that you're\nclaiming that this equals Bitcoin failing is an exaggeration, but you do\nbelieve that evolving towards an ecosystem where there is competition for\nblock space is a bad thing, right?\n\nI don't agree that \"Not everyone is able to use the block chain for every\nuse case\" is the same thing as \"People stop using Bitcoin\". People are\nalready not using it for every use case.\n\nHere is what my proposed BIP says: \"No hard forking change that relaxes the\nblock size limit can be guaranteed to provide enough space for every\npossible demand - or even any particular demand - unless strong\ncentralization of the mining ecosystem is expected. Because of that, the\ndevelopment of a fee market and the evolution towards an ecosystem that is\nable to cope with block space competition should be considered healthy.\"\n\n-- \nPieter\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150806/aff56c38/attachment.html\u003e", "sig": "79d9d90f4d0304dff29e3e0812da9425cf266d4a400e2dde0a9784e1511b0519ac4fbe99929010b1d3862b217268d091d110e713a211e059c244086e18a37e0b" }