📅 Original date posted:2015-08-14
📝 Original message:On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Venzen Khaosan <venzen at mail.bihthai.net>
wrote:
>
> On 08/12/2015 10:35 AM, Elliot Olds via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > It depends on which use case's reliability that you focus on. For
> > any specific use case of Bitcoin, that use case will be more
> > reliable with a larger block size (ignoring centralization
> > effects).
>
> I read through your message and see the point you're trying to make,
> but would like to point out that it is not useful to talk about
> hypothetical scenarios involving Bitcoin that include the supposition
> "ignoring centralization effects".
>
Pieter was arguing for the existence of an effect on reliability that was
orthogonal to centralization risk. When arguing that this effect doesn't
really exist, it's appropriate to hold centralization risk constant.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150814/880ef259/attachment.html>;
Elliot Olds [ARCHIVE] /
npub16w…lgem7
2023-06-07 15:45:58
in reply to nevent1q…zv4m
Author Public Key
npub16wtdr5grjycaw37553u5vvlfq09rwxhzz4kler6pz952a7ny6mtqslgem7Published at
2023-06-07 15:45:58Event JSON
{
"id": "32f8ae225b588b4c3cf1136ae55d9b8f259b65cb2e040f575d0d8593636c22b2",
"pubkey": "d396d1d1039131d747d4a4794633e903ca371ae2156dfc8f411168aefa64d6d6",
"created_at": 1686152758,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cf6411bfecea99b0c4ea78e985838b5e3fd62429f4968960ffd260356286401f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"48bdd0f540543e040b34d024f14e31f1454adbd1f30f26e01824d6106f8435f4",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e714966547dd91a3f320e4323e88e8ce7c046abe8c7e328d48ae1e68503b04f9"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-14\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Venzen Khaosan \u003cvenzen at mail.bihthai.net\u003e\nwrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e On 08/12/2015 10:35 AM, Elliot Olds via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e It depends on which use case's reliability that you focus on. For\n\u003e \u003e any specific use case of Bitcoin, that use case will be more\n\u003e \u003e reliable with a larger block size (ignoring centralization\n\u003e \u003e effects).\n\u003e\n\u003e I read through your message and see the point you're trying to make,\n\u003e but would like to point out that it is not useful to talk about\n\u003e hypothetical scenarios involving Bitcoin that include the supposition\n\u003e \"ignoring centralization effects\".\n\u003e\n\nPieter was arguing for the existence of an effect on reliability that was\northogonal to centralization risk. When arguing that this effect doesn't\nreally exist, it's appropriate to hold centralization risk constant.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150814/880ef259/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "03a8a09bae0a1159be22b7f3c6f0cec71bb9880b9b3c703b5fa0f2d8685ef19d28d6ac028cd02d67953d195fdc5527290c71df2053af5353286c42588c92ce6a"
}