rich1.0npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wdhttps://nostr.ae/npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wdnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-17 📝 Original message:One of the comments made by the mining pools is that they won't run XT because it is "experimental". Has there been any consideration to making available a version of XT with only the blocksize changes? The least "experimental" version would be one that makes the absolute minimum changes to core. The MAX_BLOCK_SIZE parameter could be overwritten whenever the longest tip changes. This saves creating a new function. Without the consensus measuring code, the patch would be even easier. Satoshi's proposal was just a block height comparison (a year in advance). The state storing code is also another complication. If the standard "counting" upgrade system was used, then no state would need to be stored in the database. On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:49 PM, odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla at riseup.net> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > (My replies below) > > On 06/26/2015 06:47 AM, Tier Nolan wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Adam Back <adam at cypherspace.org > > <mailto:adam at cypherspace.org>> wrote: > > > > The hard-cap serves the purpose of a safety limit in case our > > understanding about the economics, incentives or game-theory is > > wrong worst case. > > > > > > True. > > Yep. > > > > > BIP 100 and 101 could be combined. Would that increase consensus? > > Possibly ~ In my past message(s), I've suggested that Jeff's BIP 100 > is a better alternative to Gavin's proposal(s), but that I didn't > think that this should be taken to mean that I am saying one thing is > "superior" to Gavin's work, rather, I emphasized that Gavin work with > Jeff and Adam. > > At least, at this stage the things are in a BIP process. > > If the BIP 100 and BIP 101 would be combined, what would that look > like on paper? > > > > > - Miner vote threshold reached - Wait notice period or until > > earliest start time - Block size default target set to 1 MB - Soft > > limit set to 1MB - Hard limit set to 8MB + double every 2 years - > > Miner vote to decide soft limit (lowest size ignoring bottom 20% > > but 1MB minimum) > > > > Block size updates could be aligned with the difficulty setting > > and based on the last 2016 blocks. > > > > Miners could leave the 1MB limit in place initially. The vote is > > to get the option to increase the block size. > > > > Legacy clients would remain in the network until >80% of miners > > vote to raise the limit and a miner produces a >1MB block. > > > > If the growth rate over-estimates hardware improvements, the devs > > could add a limit into the core client. If they give notice and > > enough users update, then miners would have to accept it. > > > > The block size becomes min(miner's vote, core devs). Even if 4 > > years notice is given, blocks would only be 4X optimal. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing > > list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > - -- > http://abis.io ~ > "a protocol concept to enable decentralization > and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good" > https://keybase.io/odinn > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1 > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVlG5oAAoJEGxwq/inSG8C0r4H/0eklB9GxgHdl4LK7UoLeYYb > hlCiIJZ1+sRhTRIHrBtZO+nb2Uy3jLdqO9eOL4z9OXk3TCRBFwSdWrwsZXbzy3tC > 5TmYlHvLSpfjiUxpP9JcO5E2VwFvB80pKkjPuUhwFVngh0HHsTA1IinUt52ZW1QP > wTdgKFHw3QL9zcfEXljVa3Ih9ssqrl5Eoab8vE2yr3p3QHR7caRLY1gFyKKIRxVH > YQangx6D33JcxyAcDNhYqavyt02lHxscqyZo6I4XUvE/aZVmSVTlm2zg7xdR7aCZ > 0PlDwzpMD6Zk2QO/5qPPPos/5VETT0ompFK62go/hY2uB4cm+yZw3FFxR+Kknog= > =rtTH > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150817/8f7d94b9/attachment.html>