š
Original date posted:2015-08-18
š Original message:A smaller block size would make this a soft fork, as unupgraded nodes would
consider the new blocks valid. It would only make things that were allowed
forbidden, which is the definition of a soft fork. For a hard fork, you
need to allow something that was previously invalid.
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> s = 1.5MB. As the 1MB cap was set 5 years ago, there is no doubt that all
> types of technology has since improved by >50%. I don't mind making it a
> bit smaller but in that case not much valuable data could be gathered and
> the second objective of this experiment may not be archived.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150818/e459cb0b/attachment-0001.html>;
Micha Bailey [ARCHIVE] /
npub1g9ā¦323pl
2023-06-07 15:48:12
in reply to nevent1qā¦73uw
Author Public Key
npub1g97v5rt5sguagjk0cetckrhhmr3hded8u4vwe5keqphe7ye9tgfsv323plPublished at
2023-06-07 15:48:12Event JSON
{
"id": "3c2e1b1be6300d2c1b07d142f9636ecf8bff426b18df468b3562098404b6e6f9",
"pubkey": "417cca0d748239d44acfc6578b0ef7d8e376e5a7e558ecd2d9006f9f13255a13",
"created_at": 1686152892,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d1741ba43ee3659ec018c6d08510dcfe36f706cba8efd0c9670cfaa6540ca5b4",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ce83822f6a6fec198575e6ff6b8ad249b60f9a6a5aa2df3695e165d1d9ce51e8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b61e2e7ccbf4abd7f49715c62f4ac7a93cbdd5ead0316279c5f5fe9b18dd0aaa"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2015-08-18\nš Original message:A smaller block size would make this a soft fork, as unupgraded nodes would\nconsider the new blocks valid. It would only make things that were allowed\nforbidden, which is the definition of a soft fork. For a hard fork, you\nneed to allow something that was previously invalid.\n\nOn Tuesday, August 18, 2015, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e s = 1.5MB. As the 1MB cap was set 5 years ago, there is no doubt that all\n\u003e types of technology has since improved by \u003e50%. I don't mind making it a\n\u003e bit smaller but in that case not much valuable data could be gathered and\n\u003e the second objective of this experiment may not be archived.\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150818/e459cb0b/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "65a9cb0bcce799a7f4c297ed289f66c9e995f9ed7f7c058c1094fb26d5b63593d79c460318422dc5e0151f49f4557319944c75fada5a72986480c648190d963b"
}