1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
|
Return-Path: <simon@bitcartel.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8D92499
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 24 Jul 2015 15:22:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pd0-f171.google.com (mail-pd0-f171.google.com
[209.85.192.171])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 584FB254
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 24 Jul 2015 15:22:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pdrg1 with SMTP id g1so15205872pdr.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:22:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=eKajGs9yfAFrzb6R3q9niiwaoeTwxPw3a2rtR9vy5yM=;
b=BuGagdbhW1XVkGdbV1rH7C1ZyICGeE8Dnf8Q8gdSXkpZrEWXUAhfDbAbITokNqfpvQ
Zgc/AazUi3i0Sz6KRqSk+qu5TTz7I67t4fpGmW9aTfDcxRVKruzGk+5rd2m5zPeeWGPr
eFENhotOBtwyamOVzPXFzoKe6+Tzq/h4k9vaIyYp6H8A17yEz7vu0AwMmo9/Ku3b6Msw
SR2xxeLM3cOjJEj/aipCY6k/wKdfCAn/S1F8aJKIQdxhHhImVTwc1iBhIKjVtZIHw5OP
5DmP9WkQqVXaIPij3f3XaEqJR4/L4GWHYnkblQjiRL/Bkcr8WNHqO0VoE5RPgfcn58hl
PusQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkRRlX5E0MkSYPczS6a4P/j0YqW10cHKL+fe3yxMrlT7039tqXuVAjDzT02tC1hU7ry6wtZ
X-Received: by 10.66.147.131 with SMTP id tk3mr32675707pab.104.1437751371884;
Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.13] (c-24-5-43-190.hsd1.ca.comcast.net.
[24.5.43.190]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
np15sm15197722pdb.1.2015.07.24.08.22.45
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55B25844.6020801@bitcartel.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:22:44 -0700
From: Simon Liu <simon@bitcartel.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <CAGLBAhepXCaChSBsz49YNnLOOpiy9nsNYqNv0NH+G3W=17=2yA@mail.gmail.com> <trinity-44986062-638d-4c20-a1f8-56a7c7cec648-1437709050654@3capp-mailcom-bs10> <CA+w+GKS91NWB9ffysD4qEvAm+r1PswMePq6dirshbcZzpFg6Cg@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTFWfvc7LL5UgOMNnzNCxwbgyGRXgdV7wt1LYGGZ9h4XWw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTFWfvc7LL5UgOMNnzNCxwbgyGRXgdV7wt1LYGGZ9h4XWw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Roadmap 2015,
or "If We Do Nothing" Analysis
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 15:22:52 -0000
Would a 1MB increase to 2MB, as outlined in BIP 102, be considered a
"modest" increase?
On 07/24/2015 07:09 AM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I am
> optimistic that within a year Bitcoin scaling and decentralisation
> will look much better with current active work on decentralisation,
> layer 2 scaling solutions. As part of that I could see a modest
> blocksize increase to smooth out the transition to layer 2.
|
