On Aug 29, 2015 9:43 AM, "Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > This work has vacuumed my entire life for the past two weeks leading me to lag behind on a lot of work. I apologize for typos which I may not have seen. I stand by for any comments the community may have and look forward to reigniting consideration of a block size scaling proposal (BIP101) which, due to the XT fork drama, I believe has been placed hastily and undeservedly on the chopping block.
I don't like relying on exponential growth (that's why I don't like neither Gavin's 101 nor Pieter's 103). But I don't think it's too late to turn bip101 into just another proposal for an uncontroversial hardfork (changing the 75% to 95% would be the first step) and xt into just another software fork. My favorite one so far is bip102 (even though I still consider "2mb now" arbitrary and I'm worried about making mining centralization even worse than it is now), but if it was framed as a schism hardfork like bip101 I would also warn about the dangers of a schism hardfork for it. > https://www.scribd.com/doc/276849939/On-the-Nature-of-Miner-Advantages-in-Uncapped-Block-Size-Fee-Markets I'll read it to try to understand your claims. Are you presentung this in the scaling workshop?
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
