Hi all,

in BIP 99, there is the example of an anti-Block-creator hardfork
which is a hardfork setting a blocklimit where the blocksize was
unlimited previously.
(No, I do not want to discuss about blocksize.)
I do not quite understand why this is a hardfork. I think this is a

>From BIP99 [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0099.mediawiki]:

> Anti-Block-creator hardfork
> There's less extreme cases where changing the pow function would not
> be necessary. For example, let's imagine a bright future where
> commoditized ASICs are running in millions home-heaters all over the
> world, but the block size has been completely removed and the network
> has devolved to a very centralized system where only 2 big pools have
> the resources to fully validate full blocks and create block templates
> with competitive levels of transaction fees. In that case, changing
> the pow function would be a terrible waste and a risk that could be
> avoided. A hardfork restoring a block size limit could help fixing
> this situation. Please don't take it as an argument for or against
> raising the block size limit: it's just an example. But in this case,
> again, those 2 big pools would probably be against the fork and,
> again, their voting is irrelevant. 

A hardfork is "A consensus fork that makes previously invalid blocks
valid. Hardforks require all users to upgrade."(BIP99). Which
previously invalid blocks become valid in the example above? Rather it
is the other way around, that previously valid blocks (with great
size) become invalid, and thus a softfork.

All the best

Henning Kopp
Institute of Distributed Systems
Ulm University, Germany

Office: O27 - 3402
Phone: +49 731 50-24138
Web: http://www.uni-ulm.de/in/vs/~kopp
bitcoin-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to