📅 Original date posted:2019-11-11
📝 Original message: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
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 18:21:34
in reply to nevent1q…h9yt
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nPublished at
2023-06-07 18:21:34Event JSON
{
"id": "03b3000a4be51354533790b9b413b42de0d479c0193c19f70143635df0a5c07f",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686162094,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5d418eaec984b9cdcaa5c550d5a78bddb4dd725422b96ba9619ac570ce29f436",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"bc588501bec6e7dab6575b2411fc87ceecc94cdc382b5eb325ae9aa3f5328194",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7f05c6d469aea3aebb69433a3de1336e36d9b0e34b54488cca80118b30a2e0ea"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2019-11-11\n📝 Original message:On Monday 11 November 2019 17:10:16 Hampus Sjöberg wrote:\n\u003e \u003e It ISN'T low right now...\n\u003e\n\u003e I agree, but I don't think it's a good idea to softfork it to lower than 4M\n\u003e WU though, and I don't think we need to;\n\u003e hopefully when exchanges start using Lightning or Liquid, avg blocksize\n\u003e will go down.\n\nNot likely, so long as spam continues to pad blocks full.\n\n\u003e \u003e Extension blocks are not softforks, and are unreasonably convoluted for\n\u003e no\n\u003e real gain. When the time comes, the block size should be increased only\n\u003e using\n\u003e a hardfork.\n\u003e\n\u003e It depends on how you define soft and hardforks, I suspect you don't see\n\u003e extension blocks as a softforks because old nodes won't maintain a correct\n\u003e UTXO set.\n\u003e I think an extension block is a softfork because old nodes will still be\n\u003e able to follow the mainchain.\n\nSoftforks leave old nodes *working*, so yes, maintaining the correct UTXO \nstate.\n\nSimply \"following\" is meaningless, as even soft-hardforks are \"followed\".\n\n\u003e I don't know if a blocksize increase hardfork will get consensus as the\n\u003e idea has been ruined by all malicious hijack attempts we've seen over the\n\u003e years.\n\nIf there isn't consensus, then it shouldn't be done, period.\n\nLuke",
"sig": "5de9d87ef8e7ee345e8077b2f36c0be65a8ee9a6ba5e58fa3db056aaad49b586f106b653d5ff694177902d360a0365f53e8b9b65fc6a16075a5ca829e15d04e1"
}