{"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:2015-06-12\n📝 Original message:Jeff Garzik recently proposed that the upper blocksize limit be removed\nentirely, with a \"soft\" limit being enforced via miner vote, recorded by\nhashing power.\n\nThis mechanism within the protocol for users to have any influence over\nthe miner vote. We can add that back by providing a way for transactions\nthemselves to set a flag determining whether or not they can be included\nin a block casting a specific vote.\n\nWe can simplify Garzik's vote to say that one of the nVersion bits\neither votes for the blocksize to be increased, or decreased, by some\nfixed ratio (e.g 2x or 1/2x) the next interval. Then we can use a\nnVersion bit in transactions themselves, also voting for an increase or\ndecrease. Transactions may only be included in blocks with an\nindentical vote, thus providing miners with a monetary incentive via\nfees to vote according to user wishes.\n\nOf course, to cast a \"don't care\" vote we can either define an\nadditional bit, or sign the transaction with both versions. Equally we\ncan even have different versions with different fees, broadcast via a\nmechanism such as replace-by-fee.\n\n\nSee also John Dillon's proposal for proof-of-stake blocksize voting:\n\nhttps://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg02323.html\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778\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/20150612/934ec915/attachment.sig\u003e"}