On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Stefan Thomas <m...@justmoon.de> wrote: > The artificial limits like the block size limit are essentially putting [...]
Changing the block size is an item for the hard-fork list. The chance of the block size limit changing in the short term seems rather low... it is a "nuclear option." Hard-fork requires a very high level of community buy-in, because it shuts out older clients who will simply refuse to consider >1MB blocks valid. Anything approaching that level of change would need some good, hard data indicating that SatoshiDice was shutting out the majority of other traffic. Does anyone measure mainnet "normal tx" confirmation times on a regular basis? Any other hard data? Clearly SatoshiDice is a heavy user of the network, but there is a vast difference between a good stress test and a network flood that is shutting out non-SD users. Can someone please help quantify the situation? kthanks :) -- Jeff Garzik exMULTI, Inc. jgar...@exmulti.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
