From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DAA3D7A
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:47:12 +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 D61C18A7
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:47:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c] (unknown
	[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c])
	(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
	by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B6E5F38A0D88;
	Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:47:08 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan;
	t=1573490830; bh=vkJc1Yw3c5nEpQ21l5+vBg4aEW1XmbDIL4WsMjUx6A0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:Cc:References:In-Reply-To;
	b=l+0Um4RkAY+NCxn6VLL6Y9TEEeGyGzWz84vD/ArDQoJQ9YVS+BEhvb+tNYYC5oJfP
	yg0Q4xktsxw18LGTRCel2DGeGB8xKAvOSUe5RfWGJeP/btyICdmNv8wS24XwlB8QTv
	jWb3EgoUcJAaNlLPnHMikBGcnQZ7YwPtgrp4kYmc=
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	Hampus =?utf-8?q?Sj=C3=B6berg?= <hampus.sjoberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:47:04 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
References: <CAN+Of7A9pmrhEma49cQ0eP7vn50WxFemAEvztFxhgX2om_8Dpw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL6iL8VwYVpFkZuExpk=7LKGTLxVdQODtZmHnaK4MR0J9McdVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFMkqK9-8GRJWXgYOUHrQtApCQ0WW0beD1xr7+mbAQS6YXY65A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFMkqK9-8GRJWXgYOUHrQtApCQ0WW0beD1xr7+mbAQS6YXY65A@mail.gmail.com>
X-KMail-QuotePrefix: > 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <201911111647.06200.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED 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] Dynamic MaxBlockSize - 3 Byte Solution
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:47:12 -0000

On Monday 11 November 2019 16:08:43 Hampus Sj=C3=B6berg via bitcoin-dev wro=
te:
> I am advocating to keep the blocksize low right now,=20

It ISN'T low right now...

> but I don't leave out=20
> in increasing it in the future when we have a need for it, preferably via
> an extension block (softfork).

Extension blocks are not softforks, and are unreasonably convoluted for no=
=20
real gain. When the time comes, the block size should be increased only usi=
ng=20
a hardfork.

Luke