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 80498C8F for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 19:56:26 +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 730B7623 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 19:56:25 +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 EBD5B38A0DEF; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 19:56:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan; t=1573502184; bh=8XXWx//qWifuoQi7q2XgnhjcUEZC0N8Rb7MgzEHOKv0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Cc:References:In-Reply-To; b=ao/7BpF8Z2P9OjpUA5MPn/eNZ0wadGjaXdT7CaLTnt71lTVEAhbDSA4aBJkNzBt8s Fgh+s7wvBVnffkmos7YW70qyDNHDSd4T1gwF86cPABC2PuYRu0EULEUaCvvRN6l0mE 1KQNouIaz90cX9kwBRzVlscaL9C503wPwGbzBvMA= From: Luke Dashjr To: Hampus =?utf-8?q?Sj=C3=B6berg?= Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 19:56:15 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <201911111647.06200.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: X-KMail-QuotePrefix: > MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201911111956.16782.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 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 19:56:26 -0000 On Monday 11 November 2019 17:10:16 Hampus Sj=C3=B6berg wrote: > > It ISN'T low right now... > > I agree, but I don't think it's a good idea to softfork it to lower than = 4M > WU though, and I don't think we need to; > hopefully when exchanges start using Lightning or Liquid, avg blocksize > will go down. Not likely, so long as spam continues to pad blocks full. > > Extension blocks are not softforks, and are unreasonably convoluted for > no > real gain. When the time comes, the block size should be increased only > using > a hardfork. > > It depends on how you define soft and hardforks, I suspect you don't see > extension blocks as a softforks because old nodes won't maintain a correct > UTXO set. > I think an extension block is a softfork because old nodes will still be > able to follow the mainchain. Softforks leave old nodes *working*, so yes, maintaining the correct UTXO=20 state. Simply "following" is meaningless, as even soft-hardforks are "followed". > I don't know if a blocksize increase hardfork will get consensus as the > idea has been ruined by all malicious hijack attempts we've seen over the > years. If there isn't consensus, then it shouldn't be done, period. Luke