š
Original date posted:2015-06-30
š Original message:On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:15:31PM +0700, Venzen Khaosan wrote:
> > Do what's best for Bitcoin and define what needs to get done to
> > agree to a simple block size increase to a static 8MB.
>
> And this then leads back to the core issue: if an 8MB blocksize
> excludes many on this list from testnet, then the proposed 8MB blocks
> will exclude a lot of mainnet participants (miners) and degrade the
> quality of diversity and decentralization.
>
> How about testing at double the capacity: 2MB?
Which of course raises another issue: if that was the plan, then all you
can do is double capacity, with no clear way to scaling beyond that.
Why bother?
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000001599522de3e8ed28f0189ddccfa1d6db5eb380cacffc79d7
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150630/f1a2b130/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 15:41:18
in reply to nevent1qā¦8zhu
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 15:41:18Event JSON
{
"id": "9daa1a63fe2f7f040a7340f7b4bea4e4231fa61ee38343ed3c4f160a3ccaff0e",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686152478,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f5c590981ad4d9aa975607e909d7efe2de1dda50c42a4f899352fa8ac34e3f2a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"811006a32416504dde5d94373c8ab5876d5515685d2c743d4b504143b8ded626",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e714966547dd91a3f320e4323e88e8ce7c046abe8c7e328d48ae1e68503b04f9"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2015-06-30\nš Original message:On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:15:31PM +0700, Venzen Khaosan wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Do what's best for Bitcoin and define what needs to get done to\n\u003e \u003e agree to a simple block size increase to a static 8MB.\n\u003e \n\u003e And this then leads back to the core issue: if an 8MB blocksize\n\u003e excludes many on this list from testnet, then the proposed 8MB blocks\n\u003e will exclude a lot of mainnet participants (miners) and degrade the\n\u003e quality of diversity and decentralization.\n\u003e \n\u003e How about testing at double the capacity: 2MB?\n\nWhich of course raises another issue: if that was the plan, then all you\ncan do is double capacity, with no clear way to scaling beyond that.\nWhy bother?\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n00000000000000001599522de3e8ed28f0189ddccfa1d6db5eb380cacffc79d7\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150630/f1a2b130/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "1b4f3ff2eaf42d47583a7e43c580584f9817f6e661a9a68f3762bb1b72b8eb909dcf3696ffc5171ad15e298493512c02efadd9456ca97d3e96ac21452e32c126"
}