seweso
Member
You can put me up as Wouter Schut (seweso). I'm not really hiding my real identity anyway.
The text you can add is: "Bitcoin has had a virtually unlimited blocksize limit for most of its lifetime, without issue. The block-size limit was never a limit on actual growth, but it might start to limit real growth in the beginning or middle of 2016. And in terms of perception and peak usage it might have already hurt growth tremendously. If bigger blocks is detrimental to the overal health and value of Bitcoin - which i believe it will be at some point - then miners should already be incentivised to create smaller blocks. Having better decentralisation - like we did in the past - is incomparable to the amount of security we enjoy now because of hugely invested miners which have made a long term commitment to Bitcoin. "
Please comment if my sentences are hard to read, need some work.
Maybe this is something for the homepage:
"It is one thing to be in the pocket of [...]. It is another to do nothing and then assume a superior posture of purposeful neglect, as though do-nothingness were a policy and smug intransigence a philosophy." - Kathleen Parker (Washington post)
The text you can add is: "Bitcoin has had a virtually unlimited blocksize limit for most of its lifetime, without issue. The block-size limit was never a limit on actual growth, but it might start to limit real growth in the beginning or middle of 2016. And in terms of perception and peak usage it might have already hurt growth tremendously. If bigger blocks is detrimental to the overal health and value of Bitcoin - which i believe it will be at some point - then miners should already be incentivised to create smaller blocks. Having better decentralisation - like we did in the past - is incomparable to the amount of security we enjoy now because of hugely invested miners which have made a long term commitment to Bitcoin. "
Please comment if my sentences are hard to read, need some work.
Maybe this is something for the homepage:
"It is one thing to be in the pocket of [...]. It is another to do nothing and then assume a superior posture of purposeful neglect, as though do-nothingness were a policy and smug intransigence a philosophy." - Kathleen Parker (Washington post)
