I am leaning towards supporting a can kick proposal. Features I think are desirable for this can kick:
0. Block size limit around 2 to 4 MB. Maybe 3 MB? Based on my testnet data, I think 3 MB should be pretty safe. 1. Hard fork with a consensus mechanisms similar to BIP101 2. Approximately 1 or 2 month delay before activation to allow for miners to upgrade their infrastructure. 3. Some form of validation cost metric. BIP101's validation cost metric would be the minimum strictness that I would support, but it would be nice if there were a good UTXO growth metric too. (I do not know enough about the different options to evaluate them right now.) I will be working on a few improvements to block propagation (especially from China) over the next few months, like blocktorrent and stratum-based GFW penetration. I hope to have these working within a few months. Depending on how those efforts and others (e.g. IBLTs) go, we can look at increasing the block size further, and possibly enacting a long-term scaling roadmap like BIP101.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
