{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-05-28\n📝 Original message:On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e As noted, many miners just accept the defaults. With your proposed change\n\u003e\u003e their target would effectively *drop* from 1mb to 800kb today, which\n\u003e\u003e seems crazy. That's the exact opposite of what is needed right now.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e I am very skeptical about this idea.\n\u003e\n\nBy the time a hard fork can happen, I expect average block size will be\nabove 500K.\n\nWould you support a rule that was \"larger of 1MB or 2x average size\" ? That\nis strictly better than the situation we're in today.\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150528/fada3906/attachment.html\u003e"}