📅 Original date posted:2015-11-13
📝 Original message: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
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 17:44:42
in reply to nevent1q…a82m
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nPublished at
2023-06-07 17:44:42Event JSON
{
"id": "d639f204d59b8e60d87c1e497f623b397d8dd2c55c984c90602f8cf789c4e05f",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686159882,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"11b0b0f0c06de1378ee07fb6857d160f3579469e45a00abd4ef30ff2a2e1f58a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"01d9061a61f2f2140e42df25ecc95435b6d0d4c01789d4578b03382687f8225c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"2336641d71b1ec0f9700709be9ec00a2eb7de005308db52e7846dd4d8a8f4351"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-11-13\n📝 Original message:On Friday, November 13, 2015 1:07:33 PM Erik via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Hi devs. I was discussing the BIP proposals concerning max block size\n\u003e yesterday in the #bitcoin channel. I believe that BIP101 fully utilized\n\u003e will outperform consumer hardware soon or later and thereby centralize\n\u003e Bitcoin. I would therefore like to do a different proposal:\n\nIt doesn't look like you've considered BIP103 or newer BIPs? Especially, I'd \nsuggest you look at and work with John Sacco who just the other day posted a \nBIP draft very similar-looking to yours. My overall impression of your summary \nis that it is unnecessarily over-complicated and underspecified. How does the \n2^(1/2) block size limit actually work? This is not a very precise number, so \nit seems liable to produce rounding errors in different implementations. \nAdditionally, the miner voting thing seems pointless since miners can already \nsoftfork lower limits. It would be beneficial to express the current \npossibility so full nodes can enforce it, but this would be expressed as an \nunlimited simple-majority vote to reduce the limit. Probably it would be ideal \nto separate this off from the hardfork BIP, since it's fairly tangent to it.\n\nLuke",
"sig": "59a0bf8d52edafd3e64e0274426fda74b71f00410a17138e94db92679d4243a96ebe3de24851760cf2a401b30d6109fbf5a23a663b534325d65f685cb66146f7"
}