Re: [bitcoin-dev] Core Devs : can you share your thoughts about all BIPs on this website ?

[Yifu Guo <yifu@coinapex.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2706 bytes --]

accordingly to public release[1], They.

1. agreed that blocksize increase is needed.
2. opposed original 20mb, suggest 8mb instead as it is more technically
reasonable.
3. do not want blocksize to change in the "short term future" ( direct
translation. ) and in the document states.
"after discussion we are in agreement that the blocksize should be within
the ball park of 8mb for the short term future."

They have no explicitly rejected or supported the other components of
BIP101. It's my opinion that as long as the change is < 8mb. they'll take
it.

I don't believe in trying to predict the future, on adoption, technology
growth, nor geopolitics. I think it matters very little which BIP we need
up deploying, as long as all the attack vectors are covered, especially for
the dynamically adjustable ones.

One thing is for sure though, not increasing the blocksize is not an option.

we can't predict the future, in the mean time, Hardfork Responsibly™.

[1]
http://7fvhfe.com1.z0.glb.clouddn.com/@/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/%E5%8C%BA%E5%9D%97%E6%89%A9%E5%AE%B9%E8%8D%89%E6%A1%88.jpg

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Yifu Guo via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > I like the intend of this attempt to bring more clarity to the blocksize
> > debate, however it would be more help to make this a information site
> about
> > the current outstanding BIPs and summarize their differences rather than
> > voting mechanism.
> >  (ofcourse the author of the BIPs would "vote" for their own proposals.)
> >
> > It would be good to include supporting and counter statements regards to
> > these BIPs on the site.
> > in addition to highlight certain things like pools in china have voiced
> > their opinion that increase should happen, and 8mb is something they are
> > comfortable with, which is not directly related to a single BIP, but
> never
> > the less relevant in this discussion.
>
> I was rather surprised by the tweet from AntPool[1] today saying that
> they support big blocks and would be prepared to upgrade to XT. Pools
> have stated that they are willing to increase to a maximum of 8MB, but
> upgrading to XT puts them on a schedule towards 8GB which is clearly
> not what they have agreed to.
>
> Do you have any insights into what's going on there?
>
> Also do you have any insight into what Chinese pools would accept as a
> compromise in terms of raising the blocksize limit?
>
> Drak
>
> [1] https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/633288343338381314
>



-- 
*Yifu Guo*
*"Life is an everlasting self-improvement."*

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4642 bytes --]