Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't temporary

From: Gavin Andresen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:05:34 -0400

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Pieter Wuille <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Let's scale the block size gradually over time, according to technological
> growth.

Yes, lets do that-- that is EXACTLY what BIP101 intends to do.

With the added belt&suspenders reality check of miners, who won't produce
blocks too big for whatever technology they're using.

-------

So what do you think the scalability road map should look like? Should we
wait to hard fork until Blockstream Elements is ready for deploying on the
main network, and then have One Grand Hardfork that introduces all the
scalability work you guys have been working on (like Segregated Witness and
Lightning)?

Or is the plan to avoid controversy by people voluntarily moving their
bitcoin to a sidechain where all this scaling-up innovation happens?

No plan for how to scale up is the worst of all possible worlds, and the
lack of a direction or plan(s) is my main objection to the current status
quo.

And any plan that requires inventing brand-new technology is going to be
riskier than scaling up what we already have and understand, which is why I
think it is worthwhile to scale up what we have IN ADDITION TO working on
great projects like Segregated Witness and Lightning.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen