Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 102 - kick the can down the road to 2MB

From: Raystonn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:40:58 -0700

> I'm concerned that miners are prematurely bumping their soft limit to 1 MB lately.

By what measure do you call this premature?

On 17 Jul 2015 1:30 pm, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <[email-masked]> wrote:

On Friday, July 17, 2015 3:55:19 PM Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> BIP PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/173

I'm concerned that miners are prematurely bumping their soft limit to 1 MB
lately. The only reason block size limit lifting is remotely reasonable is if
we can trust miners to at the very least keep their soft limits set at a
manageable size, but this assumption appears to already be failing in
practice.

We are unlikely to approach 1 MB of actual volume by November, so I would
prefer to see the activation date on this moved later - maybe November 2016,
if not 2017. It would also be an improvement to try to follow reasonably-
expected bandwidth increases, so 15% (1.15 MB) rather than doubling. Doubling
in only a few months seems to be far from a "conservative" increase.

If we can get some kind of commitment from miners not to move their soft
limits beyond 1 MB until some future-agreed-on point, maybe the BIP is
acceptable as-is.

On Friday, July 17, 2015 4:12:05 PM Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> It establishes a precedent for hard forks not to require a vote though.

Hardforks are not something where voting makes sense. They need consensus
among /nodes/, not majority among /miners/. No hardfork has ever had such a
vote.

Luke
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev