Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-06-30 📝 Original message:On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-30
📝 Original message:On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:15:31PM +0700, Venzen Khaosan wrote:
> > Do what's best for Bitcoin and define what needs to get done to
> > agree to a simple block size increase to a static 8MB.
>
> And this then leads back to the core issue: if an 8MB blocksize
> excludes many on this list from testnet, then the proposed 8MB blocks
> will exclude a lot of mainnet participants (miners) and degrade the
> quality of diversity and decentralization.
>
> How about testing at double the capacity: 2MB?

Which of course raises another issue: if that was the plan, then all you
can do is double capacity, with no clear way to scaling beyond that.
Why bother?

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000001599522de3e8ed28f0189ddccfa1d6db5eb380cacffc79d7
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150630/f1a2b130/attachment.sig>;