Jorge Tim贸n [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 馃搮 Original date posted:2015-08-11 馃摑 Original message:On Aug 11, 2015 12:14 AM, ...
馃搮 Original date posted:2015-08-11
馃摑 Original message:On Aug 11, 2015 12:14 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Monday 10. August 2015 13.55.03 Jorge Tim贸n via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Gavin, I interpret the absence of response to these questions as a
> > sign that everybody agrees that there's no other reason to increase
> > the consensus block size other than to avoid minimum market fees from
> > rising (above zero).
> > Feel free to correct that notion at any time by answering the
> > questions yourself.
> > In fact if any other "big block size advocate" thinks there's more
> > reason I would like to hear their reasons too.
>
> 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 (like a dumb unbounded mempool design).
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.
With the risk of sounding condescending or aggressive...Really, is not that
hard to answer questions directly and succinctly. We should all be friends
with clarity. Only fear, uncertainty and doubt are enemies of clarity. But
you guys on the "bigger blocks side" don't want to spread fud, do you?
Please, prove paranoid people like me wrong on this point, for the good of
this discussion. I really don't know how else to ask this without getting a
link to something I have already read as a response.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150811/560a774e/attachment.html>;
馃摑 Original message:On Aug 11, 2015 12:14 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Monday 10. August 2015 13.55.03 Jorge Tim贸n via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Gavin, I interpret the absence of response to these questions as a
> > sign that everybody agrees that there's no other reason to increase
> > the consensus block size other than to avoid minimum market fees from
> > rising (above zero).
> > Feel free to correct that notion at any time by answering the
> > questions yourself.
> > In fact if any other "big block size advocate" thinks there's more
> > reason I would like to hear their reasons too.
>
> 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 (like a dumb unbounded mempool design).
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.
With the risk of sounding condescending or aggressive...Really, is not that
hard to answer questions directly and succinctly. We should all be friends
with clarity. Only fear, uncertainty and doubt are enemies of clarity. But
you guys on the "bigger blocks side" don't want to spread fud, do you?
Please, prove paranoid people like me wrong on this point, for the good of
this discussion. I really don't know how else to ask this without getting a
link to something I have already read as a response.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150811/560a774e/attachment.html>;