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 <> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Chun Wang <> 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

Reply via email to