rich1.0npub149tvqh6gesh22h60jrehl5clrxscx6q65wznq9ty6pae8sxq00esg5vasyhttps://nostr.ae/npub149tvqh6gesh22h60jrehl5clrxscx6q65wznq9ty6pae8sxq00esg5vasynjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-03-29 📝 Original message:In order for any blocksize increase to be agreed upon, more consensus is needed. The proportion of users believing no blocksize increases are needed is larger than the hardfork target core wants(95% consensus). The proportion of users believing in microtransactions for all is also larger than 5%, and both of those groups may be larger than 10% respectively. I don't think either the Big-blocks faction nor the low-node-costs faction have even a simple majority of support. Getting consensus is going to be a big mess, but it is critical that it is done. On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Martin Lízner via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > If there should be a hard-fork, Core team should author the code. Other > dev teams have marginal support among all BTC users. > > Im tending to believe, that HF is necessary evil now. But lets do it in > conservative approach: > - Fix historical BTC issues, improve code > - Plan HF activation date well ahead - 12 months+ > - Allow increasing block size on year-year basis as Luke suggested > - Compromise with miners on initial block size bump (e.g. 2MB) > - SegWit > > Martin Lizner > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> I've proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Consensus >> but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than >> one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I would >> post this here again for comment. >> >> The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should >> be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it. >> >> Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its >> limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to >> remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in >> the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block >> halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is >> the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be >> in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core. >> >> With this patch in core's next release, Bitcoin works just as before, >> no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there >> will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and >> exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three >> years. >> >> We don't yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size >> limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like >> BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so >> on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core's >> release, they all become soft fork. We'll have enough time to discuss >> all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we >> choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it >> from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork. >> >> Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late. >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170329/89ff2027/attachment.html>