rich1.0npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0uhttps://nostr.ae/npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0unjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-15 📝 Original message:On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Aaron Voisine <voisine at gmail.com> wrote: > Wasn't the XT hard fork proposed as a last resort, should the bitcoin-core > maintainers simply refuse to lift the 1Mb limit? No one wants to go that > route. An alternate hard-fork proposal like BIP100 that gets consensus, or > a modified version of gavin's that ups the limit to 8Mb instead of 20Mb, or > hell even some major changes to the non-consunsus code to make it > adequately handle the situation when blocks fill up, and allow wallet > software to continue working with a send-and-forget use pattern, any of > these would be enough to avoid the need for an XT only hard-fork. > > So far BIP100 is the only one that seems to actually be getting any sort > of momentum toward consensus, and it was proposed... 2 days ago? When the > XT fork was proposed as a last resort, it was when the opponents were (to > my understanding) suggesting we just let blocks fill up, and hopefully > things would just work out on their own. > We are not reaching consensus about any proposal, Garzik's or otherwise. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150615/8ccbaeef/attachment.html>