On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:54 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > As I understand, there is already a consensus among core dev that block size > should/could be raised. The remaining questions are how, when, how much, and > how fast. These are the questions for the coming Bitcoin Scalability > Workshops but immediate consensus in these issues are not guaranteed. > > Could we just stop the debate for a moment, and agree to a scheduled > experimental hardfork? > > Objectives (by order of importance): > > 1. The most important objective is to show the world that reaching consensus > for a Bitcoin hardfork is possible. If we could have a successful one, we > would have more in the future
Apart from classifying all potential consensus rule changes and recommend a deployment path for each case, deploying an uncontroversial hardfork is one of the main goals of bip99: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009837.html > 2. With a slight increase in block size, to collect data for future > hardforks The uncontroversial hardfork doesn't need to change the maximum block size: there's plenty of hardfork proposals out there, some of them very well tested (like the proposed hardfork in bip99). > 1. Today, we all agree that some kind of block size hardfork will happen on > t1=*1 June 2016* I disagree with this. I think it should be schedule at least a year after it is deployed in the newest versions. Maybe there's something special about June 2016 that I'm missing. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
