Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 100 repo

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1481 bytes --]

Oh, and answering your question about the 1M:  It is a safety rail.  It can
perform no worse on the low end than the current system.  Eliminates
unlikely scenarios that squeeze users.


On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:58:54 PM Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > The repo: https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100
>
> What is the purpose of the newly added 1 MB floor? It seems clear from the
> current information available that 1 MB is presently too high for the
> limit,
> and it is entirely one-sided to only allow increases when decreases are
> much
> more likely to be needed in the short term.
>
> Must the new size limit votes use 11 bytes of coinbase? Why not just use a
> numeric value pushed after height? Since this is a hardfork, I suggest
> increasing the coinbase length to allow for 100 bytes *in addition* to the
> pushed height and size-vote.
>
> I suggest combining 2 & 4 into a single rule lifting the 1 MB limit to 32
> MB
> (or whatever value is deemed appropriate) to make it clear that the limit
> remains a part of the consensus protocol and p2p protocol limits are not to
> have an effect on consensus rules.
>
> Furthermore, I suggest modifying the voting to require 50% to set the limit
> floor. This has the effect of merely coordinating what miners can already
> effectively do today by rejecting blocks larger than some collusion-
> determined limit.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Luke
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2012 bytes --]