{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-05-06\n📝 Original message:On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Matt Corallo \u003cbitcoin-list at bluematt.me\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e Personally, I'm rather strongly against any commitment to a block size\n\u003e increase in the near future.\n\n\nMiners can already soft-fork to reduce the maximum block size.  If 51% of\nminers agree to a 250kB block size, then that is the maximum block size.\n\nThe question being discussed is what is the maximum block size merchants\nand users will accept.  This puts a reasonable limit on the maximum size\nminers can increase the block size to.\n\nIn effect, the block size is set by the minimum of the miner's and the\nmerchants/user's size.min(miner, merchants/users).\n\n\n\u003e This allows the well-funded Bitcoin ecosystem to continue building\n\u003e systems which rely on transactions moving quickly into blocks while\n\u003e pretending these systems scale. Thus, instead of working on technologies\n\u003e which bring Bitcoin's trustlessness to systems which scale beyond a\n\u003e blockchain's necessarily slow and (compared to updating numbers in a\n\u003e database) expensive settlement, the ecosystem as a whole continues to\n\u003e focus on building centralized platforms and advocate for changes to\n\u003e Bitcoin which allow them to maintain the status quo[1].\n\u003e\n\nWould you accept a rule that the maximum size is 20MB (doubling every 2\nyears), but that miners have an efficient method for choosing a lower size?\n\nIf miners could specify the maximum block size in their block headers, then\nthey could coordinate to adjust the block size.  If 75% vote to lower the\nsize, then it is lowered and vice versa for raiding.\n\nEvery 2016 blocks, the votes are counter.  If the 504th lowest of the 2016\nblocks is higher than the previous size, then the size is set to that\nsize.  Similarly, if the 504th highest is lower than the previous size, it\nbecomes the new size.\n\nThere could be 2 default trajectories.  The reference client might always\nvote to double the size every 4 years.\n\nTo handle large blocks (\u003e32MB) requires a change to the p2p protocol\nmessage size limits, or a way to split blocks over multiple messages.\n\nIt would be nice to add new features to any hard-fork.\n\nI favour adding an auxiliary header.  The Merkle root in the header could\nbe replaced with hash(merkle_root | hash(aux_header)).  This is a fairly\nsimple change, but helps with things like commitments.  One of the fields\nin the auxiliary header could be an extra nonce field.  This would mean\nfast regeneration of the merkle root for ASIC miners.  This is a pretty\nsimple change.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150506/58ef0a86/attachment.html\u003e"}