rich1.0npub1lhe3qfx2q5m7mq5d39waepf9lzhsy0cdey66svn63fyk6rt6n7ps7zg7edhttps://nostr.ae/npub1lhe3qfx2q5m7mq5d39waepf9lzhsy0cdey66svn63fyk6rt6n7ps7zg7ednjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-21 📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Yifu Guo via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I like the intend of this attempt to bring more clarity to the blocksize > debate, however it would be more help to make this a information site about > the current outstanding BIPs and summarize their differences rather than > voting mechanism. > (ofcourse the author of the BIPs would "vote" for their own proposals.) > > It would be good to include supporting and counter statements regards to > these BIPs on the site. > in addition to highlight certain things like pools in china have voiced > their opinion that increase should happen, and 8mb is something they are > comfortable with, which is not directly related to a single BIP, but never > the less relevant in this discussion. I was rather surprised by the tweet from AntPool[1] today saying that they support big blocks and would be prepared to upgrade to XT. Pools have stated that they are willing to increase to a maximum of 8MB, but upgrading to XT puts them on a schedule towards 8GB which is clearly not what they have agreed to. Do you have any insights into what's going on there? Also do you have any insight into what Chinese pools would accept as a compromise in terms of raising the blocksize limit? Drak [1] https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/633288343338381314