On Friday, July 17, 2015 3:55:19 PM Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote: > BIP PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/173
I'm concerned that miners are prematurely bumping their soft limit to 1 MB lately. The only reason block size limit lifting is remotely reasonable is if we can trust miners to at the very least keep their soft limits set at a manageable size, but this assumption appears to already be failing in practice. We are unlikely to approach 1 MB of actual volume by November, so I would prefer to see the activation date on this moved later - maybe November 2016, if not 2017. It would also be an improvement to try to follow reasonably- expected bandwidth increases, so 15% (1.15 MB) rather than doubling. Doubling in only a few months seems to be far from a "conservative" increase. If we can get some kind of commitment from miners not to move their soft limits beyond 1 MB until some future-agreed-on point, maybe the BIP is acceptable as-is. On Friday, July 17, 2015 4:12:05 PM Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev wrote: > It establishes a precedent for hard forks not to require a vote though. Hardforks are not something where voting makes sense. They need consensus among /nodes/, not majority among /miners/. No hardfork has ever had such a vote. Luke _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
