On Monday, January 02, 2017 6:04:37 PM t. khan via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Thoughts? For any predictions as to how this would behave, please provide > the numbers used to arrive at any conclusions.
It would probably behave as an ever-increasing block size limit. Spam has typically filled blocks to the max, and miners have stopped self-enforcing reasonable limits. > 2. Is there any need for a minimum max blocksize? Block75 allows for > decreasing the size as well as increasing it. Probably it should never make it so small that a reasonable generation transaction cannot fit. But I'm not sure this needs explicit enforcement. > To help negate some of the risk associated with a hard fork and to prevent > a single relatively small mining pool from blocking Block75's adoption, > activation would occur once 900 of the last 1,000 blocks mined signaled > support, with a grace period of 4,032 blocks. If you can't trust miners to signal based on the community's consensus, then don't use miner signalling at all. Just set a block height it activates. > Thank you again to all those who commented on the previous Block75 thread. > Together, we can make 2017 the year the block size debate ends (hopefully > forever). I doubt you'll get consensus for such a fundamentally broken proposal. I certainly don't foresee any circumstance where I could reasonably support it... The block size limit exists to restrict miners; it makes no sense to put it in their control. Luke _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
