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 BF7A6895 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 13:40:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com (mail-la0-f51.google.com [209.85.215.51]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68B531D7 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 13:40:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by labow3 with SMTP id ow3so49364483lab.1 for ; Thu, 06 Aug 2015 06:40:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=yXabax6qVi6dpfxMHKQajaWX2hBHwDQUDDJRD5ZvAuA=; b=YGZh3d5zzba8G+hFZHFr25ES2xBSlYn+viyZYaZdQdP4m2/rhAiuBL5u+I/CERMy+G Z5xZHGUEIQEBPG4MRU/5e8LXfJnyT+ZYzyCJI5evtb1nMT/9jF8n5MDaXRrnWHecMv+e Juwqd6T7bZ1/qnLn2PAE+X0iwryuY3NiqB+jEjngaS2k406/4g11H1UrbVaY7+KUJj8w 1GCykaSx+Bs0u2se5Zsj13RQ5+t0+uTrKqAmNAEMbSHnwcL9vU4ObsFZ5Ub63H+VBeJX kdmnn3cwKD3FIOvLQrG8ooGDDoqw4Zg2oEx5lm/8c44YvWdeVF4VH3iLTCUZaIhYEtMo okfg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.2.41 with SMTP id 9mr1670733lar.65.1438868439642; Thu, 06 Aug 2015 06:40:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.143.195 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 06:40:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 09:40:39 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013c6258393844051ca4aac3 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size following technological growth 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: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 13:40:42 -0000 --089e013c6258393844051ca4aac3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > This is a much more reasonable position. I wish this had been starting > point of this discussion instead of "the block size limit must be > increased as soon as possible or bitcoin will fail". > It REALLY doesn't help the debate when you say patently false statements like that. My first blog post on this issue is here: http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent ... and I NEVER say "Bitcoin will fail". I say: "If the number of transactions waiting gets large enough, the end result will be an over-saturated network, busy doing nothing productive. I don=E2= =80=99t think that is likely=E2=80=93 it is more likely people just stop using Bitc= oin because transaction confirmation becomes increasingly unreliable." Mike sketched out the worst-case here: https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32 ... and concludes: "I believe there are no situations in which Bitcoin can enter an overload situation and come out with its reputation and user base intact. Both would suffer heavily and as Bitcoin is the founder of the cryptocurrency concept, the idea itself would inevitably suffer some kind of negative repercussions." ------------ So please stop with the over-the-top claims about what "the other side" believe, there are enough of those (on both sides of the debate) on reddit. I'd really like to focus on how to move forward, and how best to resolve difficult questions like this in the future. --=20 -- Gavin Andresen --089e013c6258393844051ca4aac3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <bitcoin= -dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
This= is a much more reasonable position. I wish this had been starting
point of this discussion instead of "the block size limit must be
increased as soon as possible or bitcoin will fail".

It REALLY doesn't help the debate when you say patently fals= e statements like that.

My first blog post on this issue is here:
=C2=A0=C2=A0http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increas= ing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent

... and I NEVER say "Bitcoin will fail&= quot;.=C2=A0 I say:

"If the number of transactions waiting ge= ts large enough, the end result will be an over-saturated network, busy doi= ng nothing productive. I don=E2=80=99t think that is likely=E2=80=93 it is = more likely people just stop using Bitcoin because transaction confirmation= becomes increasingly unreliable."

<= /div>
Mike sketched out the worst-case here:
=C2=A0=C2=A0https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-lan= ding-f5cc19908e32

... and concludes:

=
"I believe there are no situations in= which Bitcoin can enter an overload situation and come out with its reputa= tion and user base intact. Both would suffer heavily and as Bitcoin is the = founder of the cryptocurrency concept, the idea itself would inevitably suf= fer some kind of negative repercussions."


------------

So please sto= p with the over-the-top claims about what "the other side" believ= e, there are enough of those (on both sides of the debate) on reddit. I'= ;d really like to focus on how to move forward, and how best to resolve dif= ficult questions like this in the future.

--
--
Gavin Andresen
--089e013c6258393844051ca4aac3--