{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub149tvqh6gesh22h60jrehl5clrxscx6q65wznq9ty6pae8sxq00esg5vasy","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub149tvqh6gesh22h60jrehl5clrxscx6q65wznq9ty6pae8sxq00esg5vasy","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-03-29\n📝 Original message:\u003e That said, for that to be alleviated we\ncould simply do something based on historical transaction growth (which\nis somewhat linear, with a few inflection points),\n\nWhere do you get this?  Transaction growth for the last 4 years averages to\n+65% per year and the last 2 is +80% per year.  That's very much not linear.\n\n\n\nOn Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Not sure what \"last week's meeting\" is in reference to?\n\u003e\n\u003e Agreed that the hard fork should be well-prepared, but I think its\n\u003e dangerous to think that a hard fork as agreed upon would be a simple\n\u003e relaxation of the block size. For example, Johnson Lau's previous\n\u003e proposal, Spoonnet, which I think is probably one of the better ones,\n\u003e would be incompatible with these rules.\n\u003e\n\u003e I, of course, worry about what happens if we cannot come to consensus on\n\u003e a number to soft fork down to, potentially significantly risking miner\n\u003e profits (and, thus, the security of Bitcoin) if a group is able to keep\n\u003e things \"at the status quo\". That said, for that to be alleviated we\n\u003e could simply do something based on historical transaction growth (which\n\u003e is somewhat linear, with a few inflection points), but that number ends\n\u003e up being super low (eg somewhere around 2MB at the next halving, which\n\u003e SegWit itself already provides :/.\n\u003e\n\u003e We could, of course, focus on designing a hard fork's activation and\n\u003e technical details, with a very large block size increase in it (ie\n\u003e closer to 4/6MB at the next halving or so, something we at least could\n\u003e be confident we could develop software for), with intention to soft fork\n\u003e it back down if miner profits are suffering.\n\u003e\n\u003e Matt\n\u003e\n\u003e On 03/28/17 16:59, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e I've proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Consensus\n\u003e \u003e but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than\n\u003e \u003e one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I would\n\u003e \u003e post this here again for comment.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should\n\u003e \u003e be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its\n\u003e \u003e limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to\n\u003e \u003e remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in\n\u003e \u003e the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block\n\u003e \u003e halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is\n\u003e \u003e the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be\n\u003e \u003e in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e With this patch in core's next release, Bitcoin works just as before,\n\u003e \u003e no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there\n\u003e \u003e will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and\n\u003e \u003e exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three\n\u003e \u003e years.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e We don't yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size\n\u003e \u003e limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like\n\u003e \u003e BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so\n\u003e \u003e on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core's\n\u003e \u003e release, they all become soft fork. We'll have enough time to discuss\n\u003e \u003e all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we\n\u003e \u003e choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it\n\u003e \u003e from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late.\n\u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170329/5cb7adbe/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}