Re: [Bitcoin-development] SatoshiDice and Near-term scalability

2012-06-16 Thread Mike Hearn
om: Jonathan Warren > To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 4:35 AM > Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] SatoshiDice and Near-term scalability > > Yes, I measure mainnet confirmation times on a regular basis. > http://bitcoin

Re: [Bitcoin-development] SatoshiDice and Near-term scalability

2012-06-15 Thread Amir Taaki
4:35 AM Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] SatoshiDice and Near-term scalability Yes, I measure mainnet confirmation times on a regular basis. http://bitcoinstats.org/post/tx-confirmation-times-June2012.png Before fairly recently, fee-paying transactions never took anywhere close to this long

Re: [Bitcoin-development] SatoshiDice and Near-term scalability

2012-06-15 Thread Jonathan Warren
- From: Jeff Garzik [mailto:jgar...@exmulti.com] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 1:17 PM To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [Bitcoin-development] SatoshiDice and Near-term scalability Hard-fork requires a very high level of community buy-in, because it shuts out older clients who

Re: [Bitcoin-development] SatoshiDice and Near-term scalability

2012-06-15 Thread Stefan Thomas
I do agree that changing/lifting the block size limit is a hard fork measure, but Mike raised the point and I do believe that whatever we decide to do now will be informed by our long term plan as well. So I think it is relevant to the discussion. > Can someone please help quantify the situation?

[Bitcoin-development] SatoshiDice and Near-term scalability

2012-06-15 Thread Jeff Garzik
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Stefan Thomas 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 op