Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamic MaxBlockSize - 3 Byte Solution

["Hampus Sjöberg" <hampus.sjoberg@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1428 bytes --]

> It ISN'T low right now...

I agree, but I don't think it's a good idea to softfork it to lower than 4M
WU though, and I don't think we need to;
hopefully when exchanges start using Lightning or Liquid, avg blocksize
will go down.

> Extension blocks are not softforks, and are unreasonably convoluted for
no
real gain. When the time comes, the block size should be increased only
using
a hardfork.

It depends on how you define soft and hardforks, I suspect you don't see
extension blocks as a softforks because old nodes won't maintain a correct
UTXO set.
I think an extension block is a softfork because old nodes will still be
able to follow the mainchain.

I don't know if a blocksize increase hardfork will get consensus as the
idea has been ruined by all malicious hijack attempts we've seen over the
years.

Hampus

Den mån 11 nov. 2019 kl 17:47 skrev Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>:

> On Monday 11 November 2019 16:08:43 Hampus Sjöberg via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > I am advocating to keep the blocksize low right now,
>
> It ISN'T low right now...
>
> > but I don't leave out
> > in increasing it in the future when we have a need for it, preferably via
> > an extension block (softfork).
>
> Extension blocks are not softforks, and are unreasonably convoluted for no
> real gain. When the time comes, the block size should be increased only
> using
> a hardfork.
>
> Luke
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2089 bytes --]