📅 Original date posted:2017-02-06
📝 Original message:On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Monday, February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote:
> > >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any
> block
> > >size increase hardfork ever.
> >
> > Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how did
> you
> > come to this conclusion?
>
> http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r
That poll shows 63% of votes want a larger than 1 MB block by this summer.
How do you go from that to "the community opposes any block increase ever"?
It shows the exact opposite of that.
> > >Your version doesn't address the current block size
> > >issues (ie, the blocks being too large).
> >
> > Why do you think blocks are "too large"? Please cite some evidence. I've
> > asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful to
> the
> > discussion.
>
> Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of economic activity.
>
Is this causing a problem now? If so, what?
> Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves come
> down
> to the high resource requirements caused by the block size.
The reason people stop running nodes is because there's no incentive to
counteract the resource costs. Attempting to solve this by making blocks
*smaller* is like curing a disease by killing the patient. (Incentivizing
full node operation would fix that problem.)
- t.k.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170206/097c2546/attachment-0001.html>;
t. khan [ARCHIVE] /
npub1lu…hjqch
2023-06-07 17:56:03
in reply to nevent1q…3txg
Author Public Key
npub1lupuse8cysuanxcpq8h4d32359xxzedzjj83rmwv4yr9qxfmhtzqghjqchPublished at
2023-06-07 17:56:03Event JSON
{
"id": "e8da011c997b7aeb5e30db9f4a3c51320d0e6e161f457e49822298db79dd8a2d",
"pubkey": "ff03c864f82439d99b0101ef56c551a14c6165a2948f11edcca90650193bbac4",
"created_at": 1686160563,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6eddf1a13d41cd54af30531855ceb7d14eb31ca00a80520a5a643c560fb7dfbd",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"039d4a3c9817d3d406fbeea81209eb36fafbe2e26a9ddf25f91a537afd1f3a38",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"ff03c864f82439d99b0101ef56c551a14c6165a2948f11edcca90650193bbac4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-02-06\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Monday, February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003eMy BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any\n\u003e block\n\u003e \u003e \u003esize increase hardfork ever.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how did\n\u003e you\n\u003e \u003e come to this conclusion?\n\u003e\n\u003e http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r\n\n\nThat poll shows 63% of votes want a larger than 1 MB block by this summer.\nHow do you go from that to \"the community opposes any block increase ever\"?\nIt shows the exact opposite of that.\n\n\n\u003e \u003e \u003eYour version doesn't address the current block size\n\u003e \u003e \u003eissues (ie, the blocks being too large).\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Why do you think blocks are \"too large\"? Please cite some evidence. I've\n\u003e \u003e asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful to\n\u003e the\n\u003e \u003e discussion.\n\u003e\n\u003e Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of economic activity.\n\u003e\n\nIs this causing a problem now? If so, what?\n\n\n\u003e Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves come\n\u003e down\n\u003e to the high resource requirements caused by the block size.\n\n\nThe reason people stop running nodes is because there's no incentive to\ncounteract the resource costs. Attempting to solve this by making blocks\n*smaller* is like curing a disease by killing the patient. (Incentivizing\nfull node operation would fix that problem.)\n\n- t.k.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170206/097c2546/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "bbc78e5abb2afe9f30af76c14be7ecfe8ff900da8ee61ec4b4973262378d20468ff736218ed8c6e52e0d77fa424ed8b37878c64ce83b4024576f492029b54fda"
}