On 2015-12-20 23:50, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
This is essentially the "nuclear option".
Remember this is proposed as an alternative to hardforks, which is also
a "nuclear option". Hardforks carry significant risks such as
permanently splitting Bitcoin into two chains if global consensus is
never reached. A (generalized) softfork avoids this problem.
This could be achieved by adding the hash of an extended block into
the coinbase but not requiring the coinbase to be the only
transaction.
I think this can also be viewed as a generalized softfork if one so
chooses, e.g.
NewBlock := OldBlock ++ ExtendedBlock
f(NewBlock) = OldBlock
I do not think this is a bad idea but is more complex than my proposal,
e.g. users having to move coins between different tiers of blocks.
Under my proposal the Bitcoin works more or less the same except with a
larger limit.
--joe
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
