Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

[Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 896 bytes --]

On Dec 18, 2015 2:13 AM, "sickpig@gmail.com" <sickpig@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1.75 x 0.5 + 1 x 0.5 = 1.375
>
> after six month.
>
> An hard-fork on the others side would bring 1.75 since the activation, am
I right?

Yes.

However, SW immediately gives a 1.75 capacity increase for anyone who
adopts it, after the softfork, instantly. They don't need to wait for
anyone else.

A hard fork is an orthogonal improvement, which is also needed if we don't
want to be stuck with a constant maximum ultimately.

Hardforks can however only be deployed at a time when all full node
software can reasonably have agreed to upgrade, while a softfork can be
deployed much earlier.

They are independent improvements, and we need both. I am however of the
opinion that hard forks need a much clearer consensus and much longer
rollout timeframes to be safe (see my thread on the security of softforks).

-- 
Pieter

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1178 bytes --]