I'll leave others to comment on whether we can get consensus on that,
but your years listed are inconsistent with everything else you've
written. Should be:
block 400,000 = 2MB (2016)
block 500,000 = 4MB (2018)
block 600,000 = 8MB (2020)
On 17/07/2015 20:06, Chris Wardell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
I would prefer a dynamic solution that did not necessitate a second
hard fork down the road.
I propose doubling the block size every 100k blocks (~2 years)
block 400,000 = 2MB (2016)
block 500,000 = 4MB (2017)
block 600,000 = 8MB (2018)
Chris
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Ross Nicoll via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
I'd back this if we can't find a permanent solution - 2MB gives us
a lot more wiggle room in the interim at least; one of my concerns
with block size is 3 transactions per second is absolutely tiny,
and we need space for the network to search for an equilibrium
between volume and pricing without risk of an adoption spike
rendering it essentially unusable.
I'd favour switching over by block height rather than time, and
I'd suggest that given virtually every wallet/node out there will
require testing (even if many do not currently enforce a limit and
therefore do not need changing), 6 months should be considered a
minimum target. I'd open with a suggestion of block 390k as a target.
Ross
On 17/07/2015 16:55, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Opening a mailing list thread on this BIP:
BIP PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/173
Code PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6451
The general intent of this BIP is as a minimum viable alternative
plan to my preferred proposal (BIP 100).
If agreement is not reached on a more comprehensive solution,
then this solution is at least available and a known quantity. A
good backup plan.
Benefits: conservative increase. proves network can upgrade.
permits some added growth, while the community & market gathers
data on how an increased block size impacts privacy, security,
centralization, transaction throughput and other metrics. 2MB
seems to be a Least Common Denominator on an increase.
Costs: requires a hard fork. requires another hard fork down
the road.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
