Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-11-13 📝 Original message:On Friday, November 13, ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-11-13
📝 Original message:On Friday, November 13, 2015 2:56:55 AM Chun Wang via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> * 2 MB, 210000 <= height < 420000;
It's impossible to have the entire network upgraded in the past.
Furthermore, 1 MB is already too large a block size today. While blocks don't
need to be as big as the limit, it's better to have the limit approximate what
is reasonably possible without straining the network. So while your proposed
schedule change might be workable (if miners can be trusted to keep actual
block size under 50% pending future improvements), I prefer the proposal
beginning at the next subsidy halving (which we're well on the way to).
Luke
📝 Original message:On Friday, November 13, 2015 2:56:55 AM Chun Wang via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> * 2 MB, 210000 <= height < 420000;
It's impossible to have the entire network upgraded in the past.
Furthermore, 1 MB is already too large a block size today. While blocks don't
need to be as big as the limit, it's better to have the limit approximate what
is reasonably possible without straining the network. So while your proposed
schedule change might be workable (if miners can be trusted to keep actual
block size under 50% pending future improvements), I prefer the proposal
beginning at the next subsidy halving (which we're well on the way to).
Luke