Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: đź“… Original date posted:2015-08-06 đź“ť Original message:On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at ...
đź“… Original date posted:2015-08-06
đź“ť Original message:On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Jorge TimĂłn <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> This is a much more reasonable position. I wish this had been starting
> point of this discussion instead of "the block size limit must be
> increased as soon as possible or bitcoin will fail".
>
It REALLY doesn't help the debate when you say patently false statements
like that.
My first blog post on this issue is here:
http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent
... and I NEVER say "Bitcoin will fail". I say:
"If the number of transactions waiting gets large enough, the end result
will be an over-saturated network, busy doing nothing productive. I don’t
think that is likely– it is more likely people just stop using Bitcoin
because transaction confirmation becomes increasingly unreliable."
Mike sketched out the worst-case here:
https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32
... and concludes:
"I believe there are no situations in which Bitcoin can enter an overload
situation and come out with its reputation and user base intact. Both would
suffer heavily and as Bitcoin is the founder of the cryptocurrency concept,
the idea itself would inevitably suffer some kind of negative
repercussions."
------------
So please stop with the over-the-top claims about what "the other side"
believe, there are enough of those (on both sides of the debate) on reddit.
I'd really like to focus on how to move forward, and how best to resolve
difficult questions like this in the future.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150806/d5606a8f/attachment.html>;
đź“ť Original message:On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Jorge TimĂłn <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> This is a much more reasonable position. I wish this had been starting
> point of this discussion instead of "the block size limit must be
> increased as soon as possible or bitcoin will fail".
>
It REALLY doesn't help the debate when you say patently false statements
like that.
My first blog post on this issue is here:
http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent
... and I NEVER say "Bitcoin will fail". I say:
"If the number of transactions waiting gets large enough, the end result
will be an over-saturated network, busy doing nothing productive. I don’t
think that is likely– it is more likely people just stop using Bitcoin
because transaction confirmation becomes increasingly unreliable."
Mike sketched out the worst-case here:
https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32
... and concludes:
"I believe there are no situations in which Bitcoin can enter an overload
situation and come out with its reputation and user base intact. Both would
suffer heavily and as Bitcoin is the founder of the cryptocurrency concept,
the idea itself would inevitably suffer some kind of negative
repercussions."
------------
So please stop with the over-the-top claims about what "the other side"
believe, there are enough of those (on both sides of the debate) on reddit.
I'd really like to focus on how to move forward, and how best to resolve
difficult questions like this in the future.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150806/d5606a8f/attachment.html>;