<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2015-05-28&#xA;📝 Original message:On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Mike Hearn &lt;mike at plan99.net&gt; wrote:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; As noted, many miners just accept the defaults. With your proposed change&#xA;&gt;&gt; their target would effectively *drop* from 1mb to 800kb today, which&#xA;&gt;&gt; seems crazy. That&#39;s the exact opposite of what is needed right now.&#xA;&gt;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; I am very skeptical about this idea.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&#xA;By the time a hard fork can happen, I expect average block size will be&#xA;above 500K.&#xA;&#xA;Would you support a rule that was &#34;larger of 1MB or 2x average size&#34; ? That&#xA;is strictly better than the situation we&#39;re in today.&#xA;&#xA;-- &#xA;--&#xA;Gavin Andresen&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150528/fada3906/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>