Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 102 - kick the can down the road to 2MB

[Ross Nicoll <jrn@jrn.me.uk>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1779 bytes --]

I'd back this if we can't find a permanent solution - 2MB gives us a lot 
more wiggle room in the interim at least; one of my concerns with block 
size is 3 transactions per second is absolutely tiny, and we need space 
for the network to search for an equilibrium between volume and pricing 
without risk of an adoption spike rendering it essentially unusable.

I'd favour switching over by block height rather than time, and I'd 
suggest that given virtually every wallet/node out there will require 
testing (even if many do not currently enforce a limit and therefore do 
not need changing), 6 months should be considered a minimum target. I'd 
open with a suggestion of block 390k as a target.

Ross

On 17/07/2015 16:55, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Opening a mailing list thread on this BIP:
>
> BIP PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/173
> Code PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6451
>
> The general intent of this BIP is as a minimum viable alternative plan 
> to my preferred proposal (BIP 100).
>
> If agreement is not reached on a more comprehensive solution, then 
> this solution is at least available and a known quantity.  A good 
> backup plan.
>
> Benefits:  conservative increase.  proves network can upgrade. 
>  permits some added growth, while the community & market gathers data 
> on how an increased block size impacts privacy, security, 
> centralization, transaction throughput and other metrics.  2MB seems 
> to be a Least Common Denominator on an increase.
>
> Costs:  requires a hard fork.  requires another hard fork down the road.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3204 bytes --]