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 2EB11482 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:12:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qg0-f52.google.com (mail-qg0-f52.google.com [209.85.192.52]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7690121 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:12:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qgep37 with SMTP id p37so49224145qge.1 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 09:12:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc :content-type; bh=gu0uZs5XRjnI4Y6VV3tHhq0gdjQ860XCTixP77h7gNY=; b=uaXx5/XLExg6DWo+SYEHtRm6SDjehShiTIppbNBvqhHGA2/KtKBrwnZN6lvT6EGOYA 1f1o6ZIiuU6XLR3o2QcpC/CbAen4FRYkl9DEOmfjdwQ5IbBiMHbWBwRpzF4gw2/jVehd JhGhcd9vextYBBCOW/6OQ31rZjKT2bp4K3DsWRqFoVkO53bWW16dWyox9SA95gytaj65 nWk+Yu75a77vq9pbFrtPNevlJX7oEDinLT441jHMYqkJJOfDHemkt98o91i4pHgl6rKr YUogj75AYt0T8BQatQnl+L1j7fij7ZoyBgn4oVlP2ixSNup8yx0hXbS+9wAHQ4RRnVRp LKOw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.84.137 with SMTP id l9mr27019592qgd.94.1437149525938; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 09:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.93.162 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 09:12:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:12:05 +0100 Message-ID: From: Tier Nolan Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1192afb97b5051b1472a8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, MALFORMED_FREEMAIL, MISSING_HEADERS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 102 - kick the can down the road to 2MB X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:12:07 -0000 --001a11c1192afb97b5051b1472a8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Transaction sizes are still limited to 1MB with this patch. While this isn't technically a change, it does mean that both are no longer linked together. Since this has no voting step, I assume the intention is that as a compromise suggestion, it would have full support. It establishes a precedent for hard forks not to require a vote though. On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 > > --001a11c1192afb97b5051b1472a8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Transaction sizes are still limited to 1MB with = this patch.=C2=A0 While this isn't technically a change, it does mean t= hat both are no longer linked together.

Since this has no voti= ng step, I assume the intention is that as a compromise suggestion, it woul= d have full support.

It establishes a precedent for hard forks= not to require a vote though.

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Jeff Garzik via bit= coin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>= ; wrote:
Ope= ning a mailing list thread on this BIP:

BIP PR:=C2=A0https:= //github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/173

The general intent = of this BIP is as a minimum viable alternative plan to my preferred proposa= l (BIP 100).

If agreement is not reached on a more= comprehensive solution, then this solution is at least available and a kno= wn quantity.=C2=A0 A good backup plan.

Benefits: = =C2=A0conservative increase. =C2=A0proves network can upgrade. =C2=A0permit= s some added growth, while the community & market gathers data on how a= n increased block size impacts privacy, security, centralization, transacti= on throughput and other metrics. =C2=A02MB seems to be a Least Common Denom= inator on an increase.

Costs: =C2=A0requires a har= d fork. =C2=A0requires another hard fork down the road.



_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a11c1192afb97b5051b1472a8--