{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0n","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0n","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-11-13\n📝 Original message:On Friday, November 13, 2015 2:56:55 AM Chun Wang via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e * 2 MB, 210000 \u003c= height \u003c 420000;\n\nIt's impossible to have the entire network upgraded in the past.\n\nFurthermore, 1 MB is already too large a block size today. While blocks don't \nneed to be as big as the limit, it's better to have the limit approximate what \nis reasonably possible without straining the network. So while your proposed \nschedule change might be workable (if miners can be trusted to keep actual \nblock size under 50% pending future improvements), I prefer the proposal \nbeginning at the next subsidy halving (which we're well on the way to).\n\nLuke"}