{"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 Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Matt Corallo \u003cbitcoin-list at bluematt.me\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e The point of the hard block size limit is exactly because giving miners\n\u003e free rule to do anything they like with their blocks would allow them to\n\u003e do any number of crazy attacks. The incentives for miners to pick block\n\u003e sizes are no where near compatible with what allows the network to\n\u003e continue to run in a decentralized manner.\n\u003e\n\nMiners can always reduce the block size (if they coordinate).  Increasing\nthe maximum block size doesn't necessarily cause an increase.  A majority\nof miners can soft-fork to set the limit lower than the hard limit.\n\nSetting the hard-fork limit higher means that a soft fork can be used to\nadjust the limit in the future.\n\nThe reference client would accept blocks above the soft limit for wallet\npurposes, but not build on them.  Blocks above the hard limit would be\nrejected completely.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150507/b5a9be4e/attachment.html\u003e"}