Micha Bailey [ARCHIVE]

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2015-07-06 to 2015-10-07
💬 Posted a total of 8 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Public Key

npub1g97v5rt5sguagjk0cetckrhhmr3hded8u4vwe5keqphe7ye9tgfsv323pl

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsyzlx2p46gyww5ft8uv4utpmma3cmkukn72k8v6tvsqmulzvj45ycprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wdmksetjv5hxxmmd7c7nrr

Publishing to

relay.noswhere.com

Author Public Key

npub1g97v5rt5sguagjk0cetckrhhmr3hded8u4vwe5keqphe7ye9tgfsv323pl

Show more details

Last Notes

2023-06-07 17:36:38

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-18
📝 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>