Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-08-12 📝 Original message:On Aug 11, 2015 11:44 PM, ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-08-12
📝 Original message:On Aug 11, 2015 11:44 PM, "Thomas Zander" <zander32 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 11. August 2015 19.47.56 Jorge Timón wrote:
> > On Aug 11, 2015 12:14 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev"
> > > See my various emails in the last hour.
> >
> > I've read them. I have read gavin's blog posts as well, several times.
> > I still don't see what else can we fear from not increasing the size
apart
> > from fees maybe rising and making some problems that need to be solved
> > rewardless of the size more visible
>
> []
And again, you dodge the question...
> > This discussion is frustrating for everyone. I could also say "This have
> > been explained many times" and similar things, but that's not
productive.
> > I'm not trying to be obstinate, please, answer what else is to fear or
> > admit that all your feas are just potential consequences of rising fees.
>
> Since you replied to me;
>
> I have to admit I find that a little depressing.
> I put forward about 10 reasons in the last 24 hours and all you remember
is
> something with fees. Which, thats the funny part, I never wrote as being
a
> problem directly.
It's not that I don't remember, it's that for all your "reasons" I can
always say one of these:
1) This could only be an indirect consequence of rising fees (people will
move to a competitive system, cheap transactions will become unreliable,
etc).
2) This problem will appear with other sizes too and it needs to be solved
permanently no matter what (dumb mempool design, true scalability, etc)
> > With the risk of sounding condescending or aggressive...Really, is not
that
> > hard to answer questions directly and succinctly.
>
> I would really like to avoid putting blame. I'd like to avoid the FUD
> accusation and calling people paranoid, even yourself, sounds rather bad
> too...
>
> Personally I think its a bad idea to do write the way you do, which is
that
> some people have to prove that bad things will happen if we don't make a
> certain change. It polarizes the discussion and puts people into camps.
People
> have to choose sides.
Whatever, even suggesting you may want to just spread fud and that's why
you don't respond directly to the questions made you respond directly to
the question: you answered with "[]".
I just give up trying that people worried about a non-increase in the short
term answer to me that question. I will internally think that they just
want to spread fud, but not vey vocal about it.
It's just seems strange to me that you don't want to prove to me that's not
the case when it is so easy to do so: just answer the d@#/&m question.
> Everyone knows that bigger blocks doesn't solve the scalability problem.
I'm not so sure, people keep talking about the need to scale the system by
increasing the consensus maximum...
But I'm happy that, indeed, many (possibly most?) people understand this.
> Everyone knows that you can't get substantial growth using lightning or
higher
> fees in, say, the next 12 months.
I disagree with this.
In any case, how can future demand be easier to predict than software
development times?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150812/86cae00f/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:On Aug 11, 2015 11:44 PM, "Thomas Zander" <zander32 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 11. August 2015 19.47.56 Jorge Timón wrote:
> > On Aug 11, 2015 12:14 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev"
> > > See my various emails in the last hour.
> >
> > I've read them. I have read gavin's blog posts as well, several times.
> > I still don't see what else can we fear from not increasing the size
apart
> > from fees maybe rising and making some problems that need to be solved
> > rewardless of the size more visible
>
> []
And again, you dodge the question...
> > This discussion is frustrating for everyone. I could also say "This have
> > been explained many times" and similar things, but that's not
productive.
> > I'm not trying to be obstinate, please, answer what else is to fear or
> > admit that all your feas are just potential consequences of rising fees.
>
> Since you replied to me;
>
> I have to admit I find that a little depressing.
> I put forward about 10 reasons in the last 24 hours and all you remember
is
> something with fees. Which, thats the funny part, I never wrote as being
a
> problem directly.
It's not that I don't remember, it's that for all your "reasons" I can
always say one of these:
1) This could only be an indirect consequence of rising fees (people will
move to a competitive system, cheap transactions will become unreliable,
etc).
2) This problem will appear with other sizes too and it needs to be solved
permanently no matter what (dumb mempool design, true scalability, etc)
> > With the risk of sounding condescending or aggressive...Really, is not
that
> > hard to answer questions directly and succinctly.
>
> I would really like to avoid putting blame. I'd like to avoid the FUD
> accusation and calling people paranoid, even yourself, sounds rather bad
> too...
>
> Personally I think its a bad idea to do write the way you do, which is
that
> some people have to prove that bad things will happen if we don't make a
> certain change. It polarizes the discussion and puts people into camps.
People
> have to choose sides.
Whatever, even suggesting you may want to just spread fud and that's why
you don't respond directly to the questions made you respond directly to
the question: you answered with "[]".
I just give up trying that people worried about a non-increase in the short
term answer to me that question. I will internally think that they just
want to spread fud, but not vey vocal about it.
It's just seems strange to me that you don't want to prove to me that's not
the case when it is so easy to do so: just answer the d@#/&m question.
> Everyone knows that bigger blocks doesn't solve the scalability problem.
I'm not so sure, people keep talking about the need to scale the system by
increasing the consensus maximum...
But I'm happy that, indeed, many (possibly most?) people understand this.
> Everyone knows that you can't get substantial growth using lightning or
higher
> fees in, say, the next 12 months.
I disagree with this.
In any case, how can future demand be easier to predict than software
development times?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150812/86cae00f/attachment.html>;