On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Raystonn . wrote:
> Regarding Tier’s proposal: The lower security you mention for extended
> blocks would delay, possibly forever, the larger blocks maximum block size
> that we want for the entire network. That doesn’t sound like an optimal
> solution.
>
I do
. Perhaps this
will work for Bitcoin Core as well.
From: Tier Nolan
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 7:22 AM
Cc: Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB
stepfunction
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Tier Nolan wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 1:39 PM
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Pieter Wuille
wrote:
> I personally think the block size should increase, by the way, but only if
> we can do it under a policy of doing it after technological growth has been
> shown to be sufficient to support it without increased risk.
>
> Can you be more speci
On May 28, 2015 10:42 AM, "Raystonn ." wrote:
>
> I agree that developers should avoid imposing economic policy. It is
dangerous for Bitcoin and the core developers themselves to become such a
central point of attack for those wishing to disrupt Bitcoin.
I could not agree more that developers sh
: Gavin Andresen
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 10:19 AM
To: Mike Hearn
Cc: Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB
stepfunction
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
Isn't that a step backwards, then? I see no reason for fee pressu
5 matches
Mail list logo
