Re: Why bother doubling capacity? So that we could have 2x more network participants of course.
Re: No clear way to scaling beyond that: Computers are getting more capable aren't they? We'll increase capacity along with hardware. It's a good thing to scale the network if technology permits it. How can you argue with that? On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Peter Todd <p...@petertodd.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:15:31PM +0700, Venzen Khaosan wrote: > > > Do what's best for Bitcoin and define what needs to get done to > > > agree to a simple block size increase to a static 8MB. > > > > And this then leads back to the core issue: if an 8MB blocksize > > excludes many on this list from testnet, then the proposed 8MB blocks > > will exclude a lot of mainnet participants (miners) and degrade the > > quality of diversity and decentralization. > > > > How about testing at double the capacity: 2MB? > > Which of course raises another issue: if that was the plan, then all you > can do is double capacity, with no clear way to scaling beyond that. > Why bother? > > -- > 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > 00000000000000001599522de3e8ed28f0189ddccfa1d6db5eb380cacffc79d7 >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
