That is good. I oppose 20MB because I estimate it may increase the overall orphan rate to an unacceptable level. 5MB, 8MB or probably 10MB should be ok.
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Gavin Andresen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Chun Wang <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I cannot believe why Gavin (who seems to have difficulty to spell my >> name correctly.) insists on his 20MB proposal regardless the >> community. BIP66 has been introduced for a long time and no one knows >> when the 95% goal can be met. This change to the block max size must >> take one year or more to be adopted. We should increase the limit and >> increase it now. 20MB is simply too big and too risky, sometimes we >> need compromise and push things forward. I agree with any solution >> lower than 10MB in its first two years. >> > > Thanks, that's useful! > > What do other people think? Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get > consensus? Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet > Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years? (I think predictability is REALLY > important). > > I chose 20 because all of my testing shows it to be safe, and all of my > back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate the costs are reasonable. > > If consensus is "8 because more than order-of-magnitude increases are scary" > -- ok. > > -- > -- > Gavin Andresen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
