Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork?

[Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1592 bytes --]

As an aside, combining reward halving with block size limit doubling would have probably been a good idea :)

> On Aug 18, 2015, at 3:51 PM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> -> You need to take into account the reward halving, likely to be in 3Q2016. Forks and reward halving at the same time would possibly be a bad combination.
> 
> -> The original proposed date for the fork was December 2015. It was pushed back to January as December is a busy period for a lot of people and businesses. Likewise, June is a busy period for people. July / August is a good period as it is quiet because people go on holiday. A window of 2 months during holiday periods is better than starting in June. January 2016 is better, mainly because of the excessive reward halving chatter likely to be going on..
> 
> ..
> Proposal (parameters in ** are my recommendations but negotiable):
> 
> 1. Today, we all agree that some kind of block size hardfork will happen on t1=*1 June 2016*
> 
> 2. If no other consensus could be reached before t2=*1 Feb 2016*, we will adopt the backup plan
> 
> 3. The backup plan is: t3=*30 days* after m=*80%* of miner approval, but not before t1=*1 June 2016*, the block size is increased to s=*1.5MB*
> 
> 4. If the backup plan is adopted, we all agree that a better solution should be found before t4=*31 Dec 2017*.
> ..
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2547 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 842 bytes --]