📅 Original date posted:2015-07-17
📝 Original message:I'd back this if we can't find a permanent solution - 2MB gives us a lot
more wiggle room in the interim at least; one of my concerns with block
size is 3 transactions per second is absolutely tiny, and we need space
for the network to search for an equilibrium between volume and pricing
without risk of an adoption spike rendering it essentially unusable.
I'd favour switching over by block height rather than time, and I'd
suggest that given virtually every wallet/node out there will require
testing (even if many do not currently enforce a limit and therefore do
not need changing), 6 months should be considered a minimum target. I'd
open with a suggestion of block 390k as a target.
Ross
On 17/07/2015 16:55, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Opening a mailing list thread on this BIP:
>
> BIP PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/173
> Code PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6451
>
> The general intent of this BIP is as a minimum viable alternative plan
> to my preferred proposal (BIP 100).
>
> If agreement is not reached on a more comprehensive solution, then
> this solution is at least available and a known quantity. A good
> backup plan.
>
> Benefits: conservative increase. proves network can upgrade.
> permits some added growth, while the community & market gathers data
> on how an increased block size impacts privacy, security,
> centralization, transaction throughput and other metrics. 2MB seems
> to be a Least Common Denominator on an increase.
>
> Costs: requires a hard fork. requires another hard fork down the road.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150717/2d34be24/attachment.html>;
Ross Nicoll [ARCHIVE] /
npub10p…pfaef
2023-06-07 15:42:29
in reply to nevent1q…9je5
Author Public Key
npub10plv6jx6pktpp5ezldnus6kj8ffg045g2kdjl78w23njrlveqy5s3pfaefPublished at
2023-06-07 15:42:29Event JSON
{
"id": "c8129928fdcb730932d69e6180f19483438af7718ff4a8ac14bc5fdde39740dd",
"pubkey": "787ecd48da0d9610d322fb67c86ad23a5287d688559b2ff8ee546721fd990129",
"created_at": 1686152549,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2e544b01cfe0620e95990efdfb39d6c5828a4b2f5866e5b209d567b2efd50207",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"02d64b99b16d9d4d06bb8d6640c2019e5a02c7296a5441cbceefba7576795492",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"46986f86b97cc97829a031b03209644d134b939d0163375467f0b1363e0d875e"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-07-17\n📝 Original message:I'd back this if we can't find a permanent solution - 2MB gives us a lot \nmore wiggle room in the interim at least; one of my concerns with block \nsize is 3 transactions per second is absolutely tiny, and we need space \nfor the network to search for an equilibrium between volume and pricing \nwithout risk of an adoption spike rendering it essentially unusable.\n\nI'd favour switching over by block height rather than time, and I'd \nsuggest that given virtually every wallet/node out there will require \ntesting (even if many do not currently enforce a limit and therefore do \nnot need changing), 6 months should be considered a minimum target. I'd \nopen with a suggestion of block 390k as a target.\n\nRoss\n\nOn 17/07/2015 16:55, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Opening a mailing list thread on this BIP:\n\u003e\n\u003e BIP PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/173\n\u003e Code PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6451\n\u003e\n\u003e The general intent of this BIP is as a minimum viable alternative plan \n\u003e to my preferred proposal (BIP 100).\n\u003e\n\u003e If agreement is not reached on a more comprehensive solution, then \n\u003e this solution is at least available and a known quantity. A good \n\u003e backup plan.\n\u003e\n\u003e Benefits: conservative increase. proves network can upgrade. \n\u003e permits some added growth, while the community \u0026 market gathers data \n\u003e on how an increased block size impacts privacy, security, \n\u003e centralization, transaction throughput and other metrics. 2MB seems \n\u003e to be a Least Common Denominator on an increase.\n\u003e\n\u003e Costs: requires a hard fork. requires another hard fork down the road.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150717/2d34be24/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "7f3414af5e686241f711d6f7470adc7e5d3fba847e10ee8ac797725932f53b8d2b7091651c8e7a1b964832ec4a1c564aaafe350eeca6594669c7518b83924b01"
}