Recently there has been a flurry of posts by Gavin at
http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/ which advocate strongly for increasing
the maximum block size. However, there hasnt been any discussion on this
mailing list in several years as far as I can tell.
Block size is a question to which there is no
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
This gives you less flexibility and I don't think it's necessary.
Please let's try to avoid this if it's possible.
It is just a switch that turns on and off the new mode.
In retrospect, it would be better to just up the
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Matt Corallo bitcoin-l...@bluematt.me
wrote:
Personally, I'm rather strongly against any commitment to a block size
increase in the near future.
Miners can already soft-fork to reduce the maximum block size. If 51% of
miners agree to a 250kB block size, then
For now, lets leave the discussion to JUST the block size increase. If
it helps - everyone should assume that their pet feature is included in
a hard fork or, if you prefer, that no other features are included in a
hard fork.
On 05/06/15 23:11, Matt Whitlock wrote:
I'm not so much opposed to a
Replies inline.
On 05/06/15 22:44, Tier Nolan wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Matt Corallo bitcoin-l...@bluematt.me
mailto:bitcoin-l...@bluematt.me wrote:
Personally, I'm rather strongly against any commitment to a block size
increase in the near future.
-snip-
The question
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Matt Corallo bitcoin-l...@bluematt.me wrote:
the maximum block size. However, there hasnt been any discussion on this
mailing list in several years as far as I can tell.
Well, there has been significant public discussion in #bitcoin-wizards
on irc.freenode.net
On 5/6/2015 3:12 PM, Matt Corallo wrote:
Long-term incentive compatibility requires
that there be some fee pressure, and that blocks be relatively
consistently full or very nearly full.
I think it's way too early to even consider a future era when the fiat
value of the block reward is no
I don’t really have a strong opinion on block size either…but if we’re going to
do a hard fork, let’s use this as an opportunity to create a good process for
hard forks (which we’ll inevitably need to do again in the future). The change
in block size is a very simple change that still allows us
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Matt Corallo bitcoin-l...@bluematt.me
wrote:
The point of the hard block size limit is exactly because giving miners
free rule to do anything they like with their blocks would allow them to
do any number of crazy attacks. The incentives for miners to pick block
I don't have strong opinion @ block size topic.
But if there'll be a fork, PLEASE, include SIGHASH_WITHINPUTVALUE (
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181734.0) or its alternative. All
developers of lightweight (blockchain-less) clients will adore you!
slush
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:12
I'm not so much opposed to a block size increase as I am opposed to a hard
fork. My problem with a hard fork is that everyone and their brother wants to
seize the opportunity of a hard fork to insert their own pet feature, and such
a mad rush of lightly considered, obscure feature additions
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 11:41:37PM +, Matt Corallo wrote:
Yes, but this does NOT make an actual policy. Note that the vast
majority of miners already apply their own patches to Bitcoin Core, so
applying one more is not all that hard. When blocks start to become
limited (ie there is any fee
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Matt Corallo bitcoin-l...@bluematt.me
wrote: Recently there has been a flurry of posts by Gavin at
http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/ which advocate strongly for increasing
the maximum block size. However, there hasnt been any discussion on this
mailing list in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/07/2015 03:49 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
I'm not sure if you've seen this, but a good paper on this topic
was published recently: The Economics of Bitcoin Transaction
Fees
..for some very strange definitions of good.
That paper may present valid
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 10:12:14PM +, Matt Corallo wrote:
Personally, I'm rather strongly against any commitment to a block size
increase in the near future. Long-term incentive compatibility requires
that there be some fee pressure, and that blocks be relatively
consistently full or very
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Matt Corallo bitcoin-l...@bluematt.me
wrote:
Recently there has been a flurry of posts by Gavin at
http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/ which advocate strongly for increasing
the maximum block size. However, there hasnt been any discussion on this
mailing list in
16 matches
Mail list logo
