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