summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/d1/82d45238f80db821bb637d28fbf50a2804db46
blob: 5f20679e17b47217eeec71678f9a7a8bac0f7021 (plain)
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
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1UFp3n-0002uB-Cb
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:01:51 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.53; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wg0-f53.google.com; 
Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1UFp3m-00035k-3q
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:01:51 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id fn15so1210789wgb.32
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.92.231 with SMTP id cp7mr35570209wjb.19.1363194103943;
	Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.157.168 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:01:43 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T0xOpNpFG4bo7wjcMV8a_xtw_jrRx_fiSutX08yfP8P7Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1UFp3m-00035k-3q
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Blocksize and off-chain transactions
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:01:51 -0000

> The very statement that we're willing to increase the blocksize as our
> solution to increased transaction volume rather go down the path of
> off-chain transactions is incredibly controversial.

I really don't understand this either/or mentality.

OF COURSE we're going to raise the block size limit. Limiting the main
blockchain to single-digit transactions-per-second is not an option,
the vision FOREVER has been to scale it up.

And OF COURSE there will be off-chain transactions-- at the very
least, we need them for "instantly confirmed" transactions.

But lets table that whole discussion until 0.8.1 is out the door.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen