On Friday, November 13, 2015 1:07:33 PM Erik via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hi devs. I was discussing the BIP proposals concerning max block size > yesterday in the #bitcoin channel. I believe that BIP101 fully utilized > will outperform consumer hardware soon or later and thereby centralize > Bitcoin. I would therefore like to do a different proposal:
It doesn't look like you've considered BIP103 or newer BIPs? Especially, I'd suggest you look at and work with John Sacco who just the other day posted a BIP draft very similar-looking to yours. My overall impression of your summary is that it is unnecessarily over-complicated and underspecified. How does the 2^(1/2) block size limit actually work? This is not a very precise number, so it seems liable to produce rounding errors in different implementations. Additionally, the miner voting thing seems pointless since miners can already softfork lower limits. It would be beneficial to express the current possibility so full nodes can enforce it, but this would be expressed as an unlimited simple-majority vote to reduce the limit. Probably it would be ideal to separate this off from the hardfork BIP, since it's fairly tangent to it. Luke _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
