Re: [Bitcoin-development] soft-fork block size increase (extension blocks) Re: Proposed alternatives to the 20MB stepfunction

2015-05-29 Thread Andrew
Hello Adam First of all, thank you for inventing hashcash, which is basically what bitcoin is! Some people have said that my proposal, subject line "Scaling Bitcoin with Subchains" is essentially the idea of blockchain extensions. Though, I think there is quite a difference between what I propose

Re: [Bitcoin-development] soft-fork block size increase (extension blocks) Re: Proposed alternatives to the 20MB stepfunction

2015-05-29 Thread Raystonn
My fear now is too much unnecessary complexity.  More complex means brittle code, but also fewer programmers working on this, which is a risk. We shouldn't delay forever until every potential solution has been explored.  There's always going to be one more thing to explore. On 29 May 2015 5:16 pm,

Re: [Bitcoin-development] soft-fork block size increase (extension blocks) Re: Proposed alternatives to the 20MB stepfunction

2015-05-29 Thread Gavin Andresen
RE: soft-forking an "extension block": So... go for it, code it up. Implement it in the Bitcoin Core wallet. Then ask the various wallet developer how long it would take them to update their software to support something like this, and do some UI mockups of what the experience would look like for

[Bitcoin-development] soft-fork block size increase (extension blocks) Re: Proposed alternatives to the 20MB stepfunction

2015-05-29 Thread Adam Back
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 extensi