Message-ID: <55931E4A.80402@bitcartel.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:55:06 -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: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>, Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com>
References: <CALqxMTG1=+F8DSeRAThtTSmj4F3YhgUiCbqJ1CfBy9Z-LLZvSQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTG1=+F8DSeRAThtTSmj4F3YhgUiCbqJ1CfBy9Z-LLZvSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] block-size tradeoffs & hypothetical alternatives
 (Re: Block size increase oppositionists: please clearly define what you
 need done to increase block size to a static 8MB, and help do it)
Precedence: list

My understanding is that BIP 101 has working code to raise the block
size and is ready for evaluation today.

When will Lightning and Sidechains be ready so that a fair and
controlled test can be made?

On 06/30/2015 12:54 PM, Adam Back wrote:

> People who would like to try the higher tier data-center and
> throughput by high bandwidth use route should in my opinion run that
> experiment as a layer 2 side-chain or analogous.  There are a few ways
> to do that.  And it would be appropriate to my mind that we discuss
> them here also.
> 
> An experiment like that could run in parallel with lightning, maybe it
> could be done faster, or offer different trade-offs, so could be an
> interesting and useful thing to see work on.
>