Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-05-07 📝 Original message:> > It is a trivial *code* ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-05-07
📝 Original message:>
> It is a trivial *code* change. It is not a trivial change to the
> economics of a $3.2B system.
>
Hmm - again I'd argue the opposite.
Up until now Bitcoin has been unconstrained by the hard block size limit.
If we raise it, Bitcoin will continue to be unconstrained by it. That's the
default "continue as we are" position.
If it's not raised, then ....... well, then we're in new territory
entirely. Businesses built on the assumption that Bitcoin could become
popular will suddenly have their basic assumptions invalidated. Users will
leave. The technical code change would be zero, but the economic change
would be significant.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150507/29da17a8/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:>
> It is a trivial *code* change. It is not a trivial change to the
> economics of a $3.2B system.
>
Hmm - again I'd argue the opposite.
Up until now Bitcoin has been unconstrained by the hard block size limit.
If we raise it, Bitcoin will continue to be unconstrained by it. That's the
default "continue as we are" position.
If it's not raised, then ....... well, then we're in new territory
entirely. Businesses built on the assumption that Bitcoin could become
popular will suddenly have their basic assumptions invalidated. Users will
leave. The technical code change would be zero, but the economic change
would be significant.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150507/29da17a8/attachment.html>;