📅 Original date posted:2017-05-29
📝 Original message:>>if the community wishes to adopt (by unanimous consensus) a 2 MB block
size hardfork, this is probably the best way to do it right now... Legacy
Bitcoin transactions are given the witness discount, and a block size limit
of 2 MB is imposed.<<
The above decision may quickly become very controversial. I don't think it's
what most users had/have in mind when they discuss a "2MB+SegWit" solution.
With the current 1MB+SegWit, testing has shown us that normal usage results
in ~2 or 2.1MB blocks.
I think most users will expect a linear increase when Base Size is
increased to 2000000 bytes and Total Weight is increased to 8000000 bytes.
With normal usage, the expected results would then be ~4 or 4.2MB blocks.
Am I missing something here, or does Luke's suggested 2MB cap completely
nullify that expected linear increase? If so, why? What's the logic behind
this decision?
I'd love to be armed with a good answer should my colleagues ask me the
same obvious question, so thank you ahead of time!
Respectfully,
Oliver Petruzel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170529/069bfb26/attachment.html>;
Oliver Petruzel [ARCHIVE] /
npub1k9…mcv9j
2023-06-07 18:01:59
in reply to nevent1q…nf5r
Author Public Key
npub1k92qjhw06j3cmjwfwdqmvjytvet5cw8fcss86wttydhjxcqtya4qmmcv9jPublished at
2023-06-07 18:01:59Event JSON
{
"id": "8ceccfed4a03aaa294e13bd38bf648c71366d8ba86249e0c887688a52a7fc019",
"pubkey": "b154095dcfd4a38dc9c97341b6488b66574c38e9c4207d396b236f23600b276a",
"created_at": 1686160919,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ccc6e3c96b1f8e9c851874b13a34ae6d02225fb40b90f324de2248a35a9d7c41",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"623626cfa03f42ec8e3d2b257af7166f884ed8d165411dd8f2c387cf227706f6",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"22944ce1e29904e3826d25013a614e4665693ec514003efacc1b7586e8e5d0aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-05-29\n📝 Original message:\u003e\u003eif the community wishes to adopt (by unanimous consensus) a 2 MB block\nsize hardfork, this is probably the best way to do it right now... Legacy\nBitcoin transactions are given the witness discount, and a block size limit\nof 2 MB is imposed.\u003c\u003c\n\n\nThe above decision may quickly become very controversial. I don't think it's\nwhat most users had/have in mind when they discuss a \"2MB+SegWit\" solution.\n\nWith the current 1MB+SegWit, testing has shown us that normal usage results\nin ~2 or 2.1MB blocks.\n\nI think most users will expect a linear increase when Base Size is\nincreased to 2000000 bytes and Total Weight is increased to 8000000 bytes.\nWith normal usage, the expected results would then be ~4 or 4.2MB blocks.\n\nAm I missing something here, or does Luke's suggested 2MB cap completely\nnullify that expected linear increase? If so, why? What's the logic behind\nthis decision?\n\nI'd love to be armed with a good answer should my colleagues ask me the\nsame obvious question, so thank you ahead of time!\n\nRespectfully,\nOliver Petruzel\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170529/069bfb26/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "067a2eb4cdfc3175d337aa599cffbac216f7c096eb8fce17a5a6be21c9e29871a620fefd583b84ff647bc48755d1cb5259758a63a650b452ae7a836906bcc44b"
}