Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1891CB55 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:00:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-it0-f54.google.com (mail-it0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FE34F4 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:00:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f54.google.com with SMTP id m27so4050642iti.1 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 11:00:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bittorrent-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=fFYBfQi+wDghbFIt3p59uWenIFm+YR8GlDU/mJ9cU6o=; b=f/Vm+NbXVwo8pwj3AGiQTgfv+pYq3nCe4pR6adMOY399/FO9dd+Z+3MFWoCdDUCVwX pXrsPlSLmVYF5FBW0b3cy4NpaINLuwTUdPa1Baw3Ipv4aa99L4zS5nqBGFefuh4E2N6C 39FzJUjjz0XHMHH8UUo88TZGwNR2E0WCtddZRzzWBpRKt5yYggka0lQqNw9eCS1aFNdD GAI072P57o5gKTRfOPsDmAC0ZBN+o9TP+ISWNMkIZvVFq+cnaI2r2bPXWZLh7lADF2oF XMHXtpB7EogPgv+QJQEZ1SDcfjzosBhsOKTe7FgMA9aMCTAOTNtvvkMFvlv6f6QwWOX9 BS9Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=fFYBfQi+wDghbFIt3p59uWenIFm+YR8GlDU/mJ9cU6o=; b=QhS/7jq89gDZ1FO6szudWxFJkRC0RyK77aMHZGdEKhW/cYWlAgUXacS734I9IvM5tX DAZnMfFkXxGfr3MsnizDn+lbUbgPwUwkcDXqQQXYkXYGKyrHC+isWwBCkWCQJEFZWuOp CajYg7dU98xhTm9l34SuKRAXF4ltyt/uo7HQh5ZQf/Zbfva8FY1qB/jILrGY0eW4c1cr VLnIwK9E56khBqRNYw45v5xbK77Dp9JaOYA+Rz5Vcj2hMlC3VPDqQ0jkyRQzJKhF6MtF SC+7GCtS74X0/TfQiwPAzwQC7HQULTDl6V84k7g6MiwjxdfUKb3TjfGti0h7qd7vtH+e lwtQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2RidCi+Oa+r03Po8dnyCEAyieyRkrMLdCf+27OM+imrMLjHj1/dj0k4XAG5xoK2ww4npKu6VatHxhs/VtU X-Received: by 10.36.1.147 with SMTP id 141mr7619172itk.65.1489341610540; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 11:00:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.36.254.132 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 11:00:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Bram Cohen Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 11:00:10 -0700 Message-ID: To: ashish khandekar , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143d464a55856054a8c5d0c X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM 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] Solution for blockchain congestion and determination of block size by bitcoin network/protocol itself. X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:00:13 -0000 --001a1143d464a55856054a8c5d0c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Shouldn't there be a FAQ about this? All the blocksize increase proposals going back to the Bitcoin Classic have the same problems and having repeated proposals which move the details around a bit doesn't add anything to the discussion. --001a1143d464a55856054a8c5d0c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Shouldn't there be a FAQ about this? All the blocksize= increase proposals going back to the Bitcoin Classic have the same problem= s and having repeated proposals which move the details around a bit doesn&#= 39;t add anything to the discussion.

--001a1143d464a55856054a8c5d0c--