Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-09-03 📝 Original message:Luke, - Definitely agree ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-03
📝 Original message:Luke,

- Definitely agree with most of your suggestions on the practical side;
several clarification could be made.
- The power to decrease the hard limit appears riskier long term in my
analysis. This is mitigated somewhat by the ease at which miners may
locally or collectively lower the block size at any time, without a vote.


On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:58:54 PM Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > The repo: https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100
>
> What is the purpose of the newly added 1 MB floor? It seems clear from the
> current information available that 1 MB is presently too high for the
> limit,
> and it is entirely one-sided to only allow increases when decreases are
> much
> more likely to be needed in the short term.
>
> Must the new size limit votes use 11 bytes of coinbase? Why not just use a
> numeric value pushed after height? Since this is a hardfork, I suggest
> increasing the coinbase length to allow for 100 bytes *in addition* to the
> pushed height and size-vote.
>
> I suggest combining 2 & 4 into a single rule lifting the 1 MB limit to 32
> MB
> (or whatever value is deemed appropriate) to make it clear that the limit
> remains a part of the consensus protocol and p2p protocol limits are not to
> have an effect on consensus rules.
>
> Furthermore, I suggest modifying the voting to require 50% to set the limit
> floor. This has the effect of merely coordinating what miners can already
> effectively do today by rejecting blocks larger than some collusion-
> determined limit.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Luke
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150902/a238869a/attachment.html>;