rich1.0npub18unhg43arsfv864rhmsdr2w28lmqcc65025rrvquq6wslrfharrsezct0nhttps://nostr.ae/npub18unhg43arsfv864rhmsdr2w28lmqcc65025rrvquq6wslrfharrsezct0nnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-05-07 📝 Original message:In my personal opinion, this does make some sense to me, assuming I understood Gavin. I suppose it could be done with a new flag (like the P2SH flag) which displays miner support for larger blocks. The new rules would apply when a large majority of miners support the new rules by counting the number of flagged blocks over a certain number of blocks on the network in a deterministic fashion. This way miners can continue to produce blocks which are supported by both old and new clients. When it appears most people have migrated to the new client, miners can start flagging support for the new rules, and when a large majority of miners agree, the new rules would kick in for all miners/clients running the new software. Miners could therefore glue together the network during the migration phase until enough people have updated to avoid severe fork scenarios. The only problem is ensuring that miners will continue to support both networks for long enough to enable successful migration. And if too many people disagree to make a clean hard fork (too many people stubbornly stick to the old rules), then it could be that the hard fork is aborted and everyone goes back to the old rules, or quite simply that the miners never give support for the new rules despite the mechanism being included in the new client. In those cases it would be as if nothing changed. This way the hard fork would be determined by user participation as judged by the miners. If it is done, I can't think of a fairer way. Matthew Mitchell On 07/05/15 15:52, Gavin Andresen wrote: > For reference: the blog post that (re)-started this debate, and which > links to individual issues, is here: > http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks > > In it, I asked people to email me objections I might have missed. I > would still appreciate it if people do that; it is impossible to keep up > with this mailing list, /r/bitcoin posts and comments, and > #bitcoin-wizards and also have time to respond thoughtfully to the > objections raised. > > I would very much like to find some concrete course of action that we > can come to consensus on. Some compromise so we can tell entrepreneurs > "THIS is how much transaction volume the main Bitcoin blockchain will be > able to support over the next eleven years." > > I've been pretty clear on what I think is a reasonable compromise (a > one-time increase scheduled for early next year), and I have tried to > explain why I think it it is the right set of tradeoffs. > > There ARE tradeoffs here, and the hard question is what process do we > use to decide those tradeoffs? How do we come to consensus? Is it worth > my time to spend hours responding thoughtfully to every new objection > raised here, or will the same thing happen that happened last year and > the year before-- everybody eventually gets tired of arguing > angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin, and we're left with the status quo? > > I AM considering contributing some version of the bigger blocksize-limit > hard-fork patch to the Bitcoin-Xt fork (probably "target a hobbyist > with a fast Internet connection, and assume Nelson's law to increase > over time), and then encouraging merchants and exchanges and web wallets > and individuals who think it strikes a reasonable balance to run it. > > And then, assuming it became a super-majority of nodes on the network, > encourage miners to roll out a soft-fork to start producing bigger > blocks and eventually trigger the hard fork. > > Because ultimately consensus comes down to what software people choose > to run. > > -- > -- > Gavin Andresen > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud > Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications > Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights > Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. > http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150507/733b3667/attachment.sig>