{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-05-08\n📝 Original message:On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 12:03:04PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e  * Though there are many proposals floating around which could\n\u003e \u003e significantly decrease block propagation latency, none of them are\n\u003e \u003e implemented today.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e With a 20mb cap, miners still have the option of the soft limit.\n\nThe soft-limit is there miners themselves produce smaller blocks; the\nsoft-limit does not prevent other miners from producing larger blocks.\n\nAs we're talking about ways that other miners can use 20MB blocks to\nharm the competition, talking about the soft-limit is irrelevant.\nSimilarly, as security engineers we must plan for the worst case; as\nwe've seen before by your campaigns to raise the soft-limit(1) even at a\ntime when the vast majority of transaction volume was from one user\n(SatoshiDice) soft-limits are an extremely weak form of control.\n\nFor the proposes of discussing blocksize increase requirements we can\nstop talking about the soft-limit.\n\n1) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.0\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n000000000000000009344ba165781ee352f93d657c8b098c8e518e6011753e59\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150508/b669d9b9/attachment.sig\u003e"}