. Perhaps this
will work for Bitcoin Core as well.
From: Tier Nolan
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 7:22 AM
Cc: Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB
stepfunction
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Tier Nolan tier.no...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 29
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Raystonn . rayst...@hotmail.com wrote:
Regarding Tier’s proposal: The lower security you mention for extended
blocks would delay, possibly forever, the larger blocks maximum block size
that we want for the entire network. That doesn’t sound like an optimal
On May 28, 2015 10:42 AM, Raystonn . rayst...@hotmail.com wrote:
I agree that developers should avoid imposing economic policy. It is
dangerous for Bitcoin and the core developers themselves to become such a
central point of attack for those wishing to disrupt Bitcoin.
I could not agree more
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com
wrote:
I personally think the block size should increase, by the way, but only if
we can do it under a policy of doing it after technological growth has been
shown to be sufficient to support it without increased risk.
: Gavin Andresen
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 10:19 AM
To: Mike Hearn
Cc: Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB
stepfunction
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
Isn't that a step backwards, then? I see no reason
5 matches
Mail list logo
