📅 Original date posted:2015-08-10 📝 Original message:Gavin, I interpret the ...

Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /

npub1fx9…l2d8

2023-06-07 17:33:41

in reply to nevent1q…4h84

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-10
📝 Original message: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.

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:33 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.

Author Public Key

npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 17:33:41

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "217eb6fad877f867f7bb85151b34f38ad46ded89297a607108da893e51c27381", "pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84", "created_at": 1686159221, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "0be39125a55b736c93365735a614c6c3adbad06ad3effa6f21e6b42bef7ccb51", "", "root" ], [ "e", "39e2eb0361e4a6f5f625e6d178e44a5c854b57bdfb0d9f5aaf542a1a430f9a19", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-10\n📝 Original message:Gavin, I interpret the absence of response to these questions as a\nsign that everybody agrees that there's no other reason to increase\nthe consensus block size other than to avoid minimum market fees from\nrising (above zero).\nFeel free to correct that notion at any time by answering the\nquestions yourself.\nIn fact if any other \"big block size advocate\" thinks there's more\nreason I would like to hear their reasons too.\n\nOn Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Jorge Timón \u003cjtimon at jtimon.cc\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, \"Gavin Andresen\" \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and\n\u003e\u003e yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is one\n\u003e\u003e of the reasons.\n\u003e\n\u003e What are the other reasons?\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do resource planning\n\u003e\u003e and have seen what happens when networks run out of capacity very seriously.\n\u003e\n\u003e When \"the network runs out of capacity\" (when we hit the limit) do we expect\n\u003e anything to happen apart from minimum market fees rising (above zero)?\n\u003e Obviously any consequences of fees rising are included in this concern.", "sig": "bf022bd6aa83d9b0f8570c23b93a1e684f50d98c35882c031c6b71a3babcfc313c3f79a6b5c3a9df0a2675622e77048348030d43c396a9ab4c0b5ddef872f694" }