> Why 20 MB? Do you anticipate 20x transaction count growth in 2016?
Do you anticipate linear growth? > On May 30, 2015, at 6:05 PM, Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Why 2 MB ? > > Why 20 MB? Do you anticipate 20x transaction count growth in 2016? > > Why not grow it by 1 MB per year? > This is a safer option, I don't think that anybody claims that 2 MB blocks > will be a problem. > And in 10 years when we get to 10 MB we'll get more evidence as to whether > network can handle 10 MB blocks. > > So this might be a solution which would satisfy both sides: > * people who are concerned about block size growth will have an > opportunity to stop it before it grows too much (e.g. with a soft fork), > * while people who want bigger blocks will get an equivalent of 25% per > year growth within the first 10 years, which isn't bad, is it? > > So far I haven't heard any valid arguments against linear growth. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
