Thomas Zander [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-08-12 📝 Original message:On Wednesday 12. August ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-08-12
📝 Original message:On Wednesday 12. August 2015 11.45.53 Jorge Timón wrote:
> This question had been dodged repeatedly (one more time in this last
> response).
This "last response" had a very direct answer to your question, why do you
think it was dodged?
I wrote; "To buy more time, get bigger blocks now." (quoted from parent-of-
parent)
But also said here;
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010129.html
and here;
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010186.html
> Then we could go one by one and classify them as:
>
> 1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees.
I have not made any arguments that fall within this section.
> 2) Software problem independent of a concrete block size that needs to
> be solved anyway
I'd like to suggest that number two is not described narrowly enough. This
includes everything that we need, ever will need and want in the future...
2) Testing and architectural improvements related to nodes that get more
transactions than can be handled for a considerable time.
This includes problems we don't know of yet, since we haven't run under
these conditions before.
> If you think there's more "problem groups", please let me know.
> Otherwise I don't see the point in repeating the question. I have not
> received a straight answer but you think you've given it.
I quoted one such answer above, would be interested in knowing how you
missed it.
Here is another one from 2 hours before that email;
"All the banks, nasdaq, countries, businesses etc etc
"now contemplating using Bitcoin itself will see this as a risk too big to
"ignore and the 1Mb Bitcoin will loose 99% of its perceived value."
source; http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010180.html
> Seems like a dead end.
After repeating some answers you said were missing, it would be nice to
know where the connection drops.
Maybe you don't understand what people answer, if so, please ask to explain
instead of saying people are dodging the question. ;)
--
Thomas Zander
📝 Original message:On Wednesday 12. August 2015 11.45.53 Jorge Timón wrote:
> This question had been dodged repeatedly (one more time in this last
> response).
This "last response" had a very direct answer to your question, why do you
think it was dodged?
I wrote; "To buy more time, get bigger blocks now." (quoted from parent-of-
parent)
But also said here;
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010129.html
and here;
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010186.html
> Then we could go one by one and classify them as:
>
> 1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees.
I have not made any arguments that fall within this section.
> 2) Software problem independent of a concrete block size that needs to
> be solved anyway
I'd like to suggest that number two is not described narrowly enough. This
includes everything that we need, ever will need and want in the future...
2) Testing and architectural improvements related to nodes that get more
transactions than can be handled for a considerable time.
This includes problems we don't know of yet, since we haven't run under
these conditions before.
> If you think there's more "problem groups", please let me know.
> Otherwise I don't see the point in repeating the question. I have not
> received a straight answer but you think you've given it.
I quoted one such answer above, would be interested in knowing how you
missed it.
Here is another one from 2 hours before that email;
"All the banks, nasdaq, countries, businesses etc etc
"now contemplating using Bitcoin itself will see this as a risk too big to
"ignore and the 1Mb Bitcoin will loose 99% of its perceived value."
source; http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010180.html
> Seems like a dead end.
After repeating some answers you said were missing, it would be nice to
know where the connection drops.
Maybe you don't understand what people answer, if so, please ask to explain
instead of saying people are dodging the question. ;)
--
Thomas Zander