{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-05-29\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e By the time a hard fork can happen, I expect average block size will be\n\u003e above 500K.\n\u003e\n\nYes, possibly.\n\n\n\u003e Would you support a rule that was \"larger of 1MB or 2x average size\" ?\n\u003e That is strictly better than the situation we're in today.\n\u003e\n\nIt is, but only by a trivial amount - hitting the limit is still very\nlikely. I don't want to see this issue come up over and over again. Ideally\nnever. We shouldn't be artificially throttling organic growth of the\nnetwork, especially not by accident.\n\nIMO it's not even clear there needs to be a size limit at all. Currently\nthe 32mb message cap imposes one anyway, but if miners can always just\ndiscourage blocks over some particular size if they want to.\n\nBut I can get behind a 20mb limit (or 20mb+N) as it represents a reasonable\ncompromise: the limit still exists, it's far below VISA capacity etc, but\nit should also free up enough space that everyone can get back to what we\n*should* be focusing on, which is user growth!\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150529/9ca670f1/attachment.html\u003e"}