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 9751A892 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:24:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from pmx.vmail.no (pmx.vmail.no [193.75.16.11]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 411AC144 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:24:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pmx.vmail.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pmx.isp.as2116.net) with SMTP id 76EA461F41 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 18:24:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.bluecom.no (smtp.bluecom.no [193.75.75.28]) by pmx.vmail.no (pmx.isp.as2116.net) with ESMTP id 41A1E5F165 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 18:24:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pluto.localnet (unknown [81.191.177.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.bluecom.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 319D892 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 18:24:25 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Zander To: Bitcoin Dev Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 18:24:24 +0200 Message-ID: <4999292.m94ooXBn8O@pluto> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1963286.x5NhlJ5RfS@pluto> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:24:29 -0000 On Wednesday 12. August 2015 11.45.53 Jorge Tim=F3n wrote: > This question had been dodged repeatedly (one more time in this last > response).=20 This "last response" had a very direct answer to your question, why do = you=20 think it was dodged? I wrote; "To buy more time, get bigger blocks now." (quoted from parent= -of- parent) But also said here; http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/0101= 29.html and here; http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/0101= 86.html > Then we could go one by one and classify them as: >=20 > 1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees. I have not made any arguments that fall within this section. > 2) Software problem independent of a concrete block size that needs t= o > be solved anyway I'd like to suggest that number two is not described narrowly enough. T= his=20 includes everything that we need, ever will need and want in the future= ... 2) Testing and architectural improvements related to nodes that get mor= e=20 transactions than can be handled for a considerable time. This includes problems we don't know of yet, since we haven't run under= =20 these conditions before. > If you think there's more "problem groups", please let me know. > Otherwise I don't see the point in repeating the question. I have not= > received a straight answer but you think you've given it. I quoted one such answer above, would be interested in knowing how you=20= missed it. Here is another one from 2 hours before that email; "All the banks, nasdaq, countries, businesses etc etc "now contemplating using Bitcoin itself will see this as a risk too bi= g to "ignore and the 1Mb Bitcoin will loose 99% of its perceived value." source; http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Aug= ust/010180.html > Seems like a dead end. After repeating some answers you said were missing, it would be nice to= =20 know where the connection drops. Maybe you don't understand what people answer, if so, please ask to exp= lain=20 instead of saying people are dodging the question. ;) --=20 Thomas Zander