From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
To: "Hampus Sjöberg" <hampus.sjoberg@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamic MaxBlockSize - 3 Byte Solution
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 19:56:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201911111956.16782.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFMkqK8fuB0BSpVsSnzgBv1WkZx_8Wqi4BQ6dL95PeGExM1nHQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Monday 11 November 2019 17:10:16 Hampus Sjöberg wrote:
> > It ISN'T low right now...
>
> I agree, but I don't think it's a good idea to softfork it to lower than 4M
> WU though, and I don't think we need to;
> hopefully when exchanges start using Lightning or Liquid, avg blocksize
> will go down.
Not likely, so long as spam continues to pad blocks full.
> > Extension blocks are not softforks, and are unreasonably convoluted for
> no
> real gain. When the time comes, the block size should be increased only
> using
> a hardfork.
>
> It depends on how you define soft and hardforks, I suspect you don't see
> extension blocks as a softforks because old nodes won't maintain a correct
> UTXO set.
> I think an extension block is a softfork because old nodes will still be
> able to follow the mainchain.
Softforks leave old nodes *working*, so yes, maintaining the correct UTXO
state.
Simply "following" is meaningless, as even soft-hardforks are "followed".
> I don't know if a blocksize increase hardfork will get consensus as the
> idea has been ruined by all malicious hijack attempts we've seen over the
> years.
If there isn't consensus, then it shouldn't be done, period.
Luke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-11 19:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-07 3:33 Trevor Groves
2019-11-08 14:36 ` Emil Engler
2019-11-08 15:19 ` Joachim Strömbergson
2019-11-08 17:04 ` Alberto Aldave
2019-11-11 16:08 ` Hampus Sjöberg
2019-11-11 16:47 ` Luke Dashjr
2019-11-11 17:10 ` Hampus Sjöberg
2019-11-11 19:56 ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
2019-11-11 13:52 ` ZmnSCPxj
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201911111956.16782.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hampus.sjoberg@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox