Re: Why bother doubling capacity? So that we could have 2x more network
participants of course.

Re: No clear way to scaling beyond that: Computers are getting more capable
aren't they? We'll increase capacity along with hardware.

It's a good thing to scale the network if technology permits it. How can
you argue with that?


On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:15:31PM +0700, Venzen Khaosan wrote:
> > > Do what's best for Bitcoin and define what needs to get done to
> > > agree to a simple block size increase to a static 8MB.
> >
> > And this then leads back to the core issue: if an 8MB blocksize
> > excludes many on this list from testnet, then the proposed 8MB blocks
> > will exclude a lot of mainnet participants (miners) and degrade the
> > quality of diversity and decentralization.
> >
> > How about testing at double the capacity: 2MB?
>
> Which of course raises another issue: if that was the plan, then all you
> can do is double capacity, with no clear way to scaling beyond that.
> Why bother?
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 00000000000000001599522de3e8ed28f0189ddccfa1d6db5eb380cacffc79d7
>