Hi Gavin
Sorry for slow response broken threading - mailbox filled up only
saw your response on archive.
I do earnestly think opt-in block-size increases are politically
cleaner (gives different people different sized blocks by their own
volition without forcing a compromise) and less risky
Mike wrote:
Businesses who are keen to
have more transactions, would make it their problem to implement in
their wallet, or ask the wallet vendor/maintainer they're working with
to do it. Nothing breaks if they dont use it.
I don't see how this is the case. If an exchange supports
(at reduced security if it has software that doesnt understand it)
Well, yes. Isn't that rather key to the issue? Whereas by simply
increasing the block size, SPV wallets don't care (same security and
protocol as before) and fully validating wallets can be updated with a very
small code
On 6/1/2015 10:21 AM, Adam Back wrote:
if it stays as is for a year, in a wait and see, reduce spam, see
fee-pressure take effect as it has before, work on improving improve
decentralisation metrics, relay latency, and do a blocksize increment
to kick the can if-and-when it becomes necessary
I discussed the extension block idea on wizards a while back and it is
a way to soft-fork an opt-in block-size increase. Like everything
here there are pros and cons.
The security is better than Raylstonn inferred from Tier's explanation
I think.. It works as Tier described - there is an
5 matches
Mail list logo
