Conservative is a relative term. Dropping transactions in a way that is unpredictable to the sender sounds incredibly drastic to me. I'm suggesting increasing the blocksize, drastic as it is, is the more conservative choice. I would recommend that the fork take effect when some specific large supermajority of the pervious 1000 blocks indicate they have upgraded, as a safer alternative to a simple flag date, but I'm sure I wouldn't have to point out that option to people here. Aaron Voisine co-founder and CEO breadwallet.com On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Aaron Voisine wrote: > >> We have $3billion plus of value in this system to defend. The safe, >> conservative course is to increase the block size. Miners already have an >> incentive to find ways to encourage higher fees and we can help them with >> standard recommended propagation rules and hybrid priority/fee transaction >> selection for blocks that increases confirmation delays for low fee >> transactions. >> > > You may find that the most economical solution, but I can't understand how > you can call it conservative. > > Suggesting a hard fork is betting the survival of the entire ecosystem on > the bet that everyone will agree with and upgrade to new suggested software > before a flag date. > > -- > Pieter > >