From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE02C360 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 19:02:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from lvps83-169-4-30.dedicated.hosteurope.de (lvps83-169-4-30.dedicated.hosteurope.de [83.169.4.30]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2230A7C for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 19:02:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 7867 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2017 21:02:07 +0200 Received: from unknown (HELO hpdc7800) (10.0.0.1) by 10.0.0.2 with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 2 Apr 2017 21:02:07 +0200 Message-ID: <1491159722.7267.5.camel@stafverhaegen.be> From: Staf Verhaegen To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 21:02:02 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-+I+6G24rhSS+p4CIZcTh" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11 (3.12.11-22.el7) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 19:23:43 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 19:02:11 -0000 --=-+I+6G24rhSS+p4CIZcTh Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev schreef op wo 29-03-2017 om 12:07 [-0700]: >=20 > It is all very unhealthy for Bitcoin. Both sides need to accept that > microtransactions from all humans cannot go on-chain, and that never > increasing the blocksize doesn't mean millions of home users will run > nodes. The node argument breaks down economically and the > microtransaction argument is an impossible mountain for a blockchain > to climb. What annoys me are people that seem to think that in order to promote layer two scaling on-chain scaling has to be severely limited. I am convinced that in order for layer 2 to flourish enough on-chain bandwidth has to be available, not artificial scarceness. In order to allow more on-chain bandwidth also sharding solutions should be investigated so not every transactions has to pass through each node and without the need of channels but protocol between nodes. greets, Staf. --=-+I+6G24rhSS+p4CIZcTh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EABEIAAYFAljhSq8ACgkQWIjyN0LdGqyQ3gEAtUo93EkF+lQRatwYj3xw0jU9 a8W7DBvyv0bIYTTevFcBAL54oiaLWDWyS3ip+dIhtKA5i8VaOARYA4GPAEbH0f7A =iCRM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-+I+6G24rhSS+p4CIZcTh--