[bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't temporary
elombrozo at gmail.com
Fri Jul 31 20:45:38 UTC 2015
I would love to be able to increase block size. But I have serious doubts
about being able to do this safely at this time given what we presently
know about the Bitcoin network. And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this
Had we been working on fixing the known issues that most complicate bigger
blocks in the last six years, or even in the last three years after many
issues had already been well-identified, perhaps we'd be ready to increase
the limit. But other things have seemed more important, like specifying the
use of X.509 overlay protocols or adding complex filtering mechanisms to
the p2p protocol to make it practical to use tx merkle trees...and as a
result we're not ready for safely allowing larger blocks.
On Jul 30, 2015 11:43 PM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 30. July 2015 16.33.16 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > I don’t think it’s really a matter of whether we agree on whether it’s
> > to raise the block size limit, Gavin. I think it’s a matter of a
> > in priorities.
> Having different priorities is fine, using your time to block peoples
> to increase block size is not showing different priorities, it shows
> Different priorities means you can trust someone else to do things they
> about while you do things you care about.
> Thomas Zander
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitcoin-dev