From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 345142C for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 23:02:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7BDBFC for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 23:02:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D450638A17CC; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 23:02:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:170205:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::5kWUImgsSZD0sLJi:ZLkC X-Hashcash: 1:25:170205:achow101@gmail.com::y5CcXFDvIvIlQZGg:B5Ue From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Andrew C Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 23:02:28 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.4.45-gentoo; KDE/4.14.24; x86_64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201702052302.29599.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2017 23:02:40 -0000 My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any block size increase hardfork ever. Your version doesn't address the current block size issues (ie, the blocks being too large). So you've retained the only certain- DOA parts of my proposal, and removed the most useful part... I'm not sure the point. Also, your version is now EXCLUSIVELY a hardfork, so it makes no sense to keep the BIP 9 deployment at all - either it gets consensus or it doesn't, but miners have no part in deployment of it. On Sunday, February 05, 2017 9:50:26 PM Andrew C via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hello all, > > Many people have expressed discontent with Luke-jr's proposed block size > BIP, in particular with the decrease in size that would occur if it were > to be activated prior to 2024. > > I have decided to modify the proposal to instead begin the increase > steps at the current 1000000 byte limit. The increases and the time spam > of each increase will remain the same, just that the increase begins > from 1000000 bytes instead of 300000 bytes. > > Furthermore, instead of a fixed schedule from a fixed point in time, the > increases will instead be calculated off of the MTP of the activation > block (the first block to be in the active state for this fork). > > While this proposal shares many of the same issues with the one it > modifies, I hope that it will be slightly less controversial and can > allow us to move forward with scaling Bitcoin. > > The full text of the proposal can be found at > https://github.com/achow101/bips/blob/bip-blksize/bip-blksize.mediawiki. > My implementation of it is available at > https://github.com/achow101/bitcoin/tree/bip-blksize > > > Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev