Add:
For - If everyone agrees an increase is required at some point, The longer
you leave it the greater the numbers who have to upgrade
Against - Insufficient testing before moving to production ready releases
sets a bad precedent
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Elliot Olds via bitcoin-dev <
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Jorge Timón <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> To be clear, these two are just my personal lists of arguments on
> "each side" to clear my mind and try to be perfectly objective.
> [...]
> Here's the updated both-thread lists:
>
>
> http://0bin.net/p
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Jorge Timón wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Elliot Olds
> wrote:
>
> -Reduce the utility of people using the network, even if the higher fees
> > don't reduce their amount of transactions.
>
> "Utility" like "value" is always subjective and very vague.
To be clear, these two are just my personal lists of arguments on
"each side" to clear my mind and try to be perfectly objective.
The resulting lists may not have any practical value but I'm going to
maintain them locally nonetheless. If that's is not useful for the
participants they can just leave
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Venzen Khaosan
> wrote:
>> 4) General, undefined fear that something bad is going to happen when
>> nodes choke up on a backlog of transactions.
>> - - no specific symptoms are pointed at but presumably there
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Geir Harald Hansen via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> So in summary:
> - Bitcoin dies. The end.
I believe this is included in "btc exchange rate may fall".
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Ashley Holman via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> A concern I have is about security (hash rate) as a function of block size.
>
> I am assuming that hash rate is correlated with revenue from mining.
>
> Total revenue from fees as a function of block size should be a curve.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Elliot Olds wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Jorge Timón
> wrote:
>>
>> I believe all concerns I've read can be classified in the following
>> groups:
>>
>> > 1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees.
>
>
> I'd rephrase this as "Consequences of hi
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Venzen Khaosan wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jorge, you say 3 concerns at the end of your message but I only see 1)
> and 2). Assuming you've got a 3) and will add it, I'll contribute:
No, sorry it's 2 concerns/risks with 2 sub-conce
On Friday 14. August 2015 09.26.33 Venzen Khaosan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> In the scenario below, you argue that the current 1MB limit would lead
> to "constantly full" blocks. If the limit is increased to say 1.6GB
> then a government or banking group may choose to utilize 1.5GB of the
> capacity
In that case it didn't remedy the problem of constantly full blocks, but
got a ton of people on board the bitcoin train in the meanwhile. And with
them more interest, investments, research and ideas.
In the case we increase the limit and no government or banking group
immediately uses up all the s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Geir,
In the scenario below, you argue that the current 1MB limit would lead
to "constantly full" blocks. If the limit is increased to say 1.6GB
then a government or banking group may choose to utilize 1.5GB of the
capacity of each block (and pay fees
3) A few more people begin using bitcoin. Bitcoin buckles and dies.
- Something happens a few months from now causing an influx of new users
and more transactions.
- Blocks are constantly full.
- A backlog of transactions keeps growing indefinitely.
- At first people say "bitcoin is slow". After a
> On Aug 13, 2015, at 2:52 AM, Ashley Holman via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>
> A concern I have is about security (hash rate) as a function of block size.
>
> I am assuming that hash rate is correlated with revenue from mining.
>
> Total revenue from fees as a function of block size should be a cu
A concern I have is about security (hash rate) as a function of block size.
I am assuming that hash rate is correlated with revenue from mining.
Total revenue from fees as a function of block size should be a curve. On
one extreme of the curve, if blocks are too big, fee revenue tends towards
0
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Jorge Timón <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I believe all concerns I've read can be classified in the following groups:
>
> > 1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees.
>
I'd rephrase this as "Consequences of high fees." It's the level of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jorge, you say 3 concerns at the end of your message but I only see 1)
and 2). Assuming you've got a 3) and will add it, I'll contribute:
4) General, undefined fear that something bad is going to happen when
nodes choke up on a backlog of transactions
I believe all concerns I've read can be classified in the following groups:
> 1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees.
- Lowest fee transactions (currently free transactions) will become
more unreliable.
- People will migrate to competing systems (PoW altcoins) with lower fees.
> 2) Sof
18 matches
Mail list logo
