On Monday 11 November 2019 17:10:16 Hampus Sjöberg wrote: > > It ISN'T low right now... > > I agree, but I don't think it's a good idea to softfork it to lower than 4M > WU though, and I don't think we need to; > hopefully when exchanges start using Lightning or Liquid, avg blocksize > will go down.
Not likely, so long as spam continues to pad blocks full. > > Extension blocks are not softforks, and are unreasonably convoluted for > no > real gain. When the time comes, the block size should be increased only > using > a hardfork. > > It depends on how you define soft and hardforks, I suspect you don't see > extension blocks as a softforks because old nodes won't maintain a correct > UTXO set. > I think an extension block is a softfork because old nodes will still be > able to follow the mainchain. Softforks leave old nodes *working*, so yes, maintaining the correct UTXO state. Simply "following" is meaningless, as even soft-hardforks are "followed". > I don't know if a blocksize increase hardfork will get consensus as the > idea has been ruined by all malicious hijack attempts we've seen over the > years. If there isn't consensus, then it shouldn't be done, period. Luke _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
