Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-08-10 📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-10
📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Jorge Timón <jtimon at jtimon.cc> wrote:

>
> On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and
> yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is one
> of the reasons.
>
> What are the other reasons?
>
> > I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do resource planning
> and have seen what happens when networks run out of capacity very seriously.
>
> When "the network runs out of capacity" (when we hit the limit) do we
> expect anything to happen apart from minimum market fees rising (above
> zero)?
> Obviously any consequences of fees rising are included in this concern.
>
It is frustrating to answer questions that we answered months ago,
especially when I linked to these in response to your recent "increase
advocates say that not increasing the max block size will KILL BITCOIN"
false claim:
http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent
https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32

Executive summary: when networks get over-saturated, they become
unreliable. Unreliable is bad.

Unreliable and expensive is extra bad, and that's where we're headed
without an increase to the max block size.

RE: the recent thread about "better deal with that type of thing now rather
than later" : exactly the same argument can be made about changes needed
to support a larger block size-- "better to do that now than to do that
later." I don't think either of those arguments are very convincing.


--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150810/fe3f5aaa/attachment-0001.html>;