📅 Original date posted:2015-07-17
📝 Original message:I'll leave others to comment on whether we can get consensus on that,
but your years listed are inconsistent with everything else you've
written. Should be:
block 400,000 = 2MB (2016)
block 500,000 = 4MB (2018)
block 600,000 = 8MB (2020)
On 17/07/2015 20:06, Chris Wardell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I would prefer a dynamic solution that did not necessitate a second
> hard fork down the road.
>
> I propose doubling the block size every 100k blocks (~2 years)
>
> block 400,000 = 2MB (2016)
> block 500,000 = 4MB (2017)
> block 600,000 = 8MB (2018)
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Ross Nicoll via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> 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
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150717/201c99fb/attachment-0001.html>;
Ross Nicoll [ARCHIVE] /
npub10p…pfaef
2023-06-07 17:42:29
in reply to nevent1q…hkzm
Author Public Key
npub10plv6jx6pktpp5ezldnus6kj8ffg045g2kdjl78w23njrlveqy5s3pfaefPublished at
2023-06-07 17:42:29Event JSON
{
"id": "cedec670569316a0e9d00702833f70b343f1b4f86968fff61ca77daf771970d4",
"pubkey": "787ecd48da0d9610d322fb67c86ad23a5287d688559b2ff8ee546721fd990129",
"created_at": 1686152549,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2e544b01cfe0620e95990efdfb39d6c5828a4b2f5866e5b209d567b2efd50207",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"87b23547158dd7c3a044f60c2c8df86d3ab8b8003ff126ee387be6bcd134ce8e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"48acb5d69d407c26838c96236a3c021e0d1f3b81a69734cb493782a93b01c5c9"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-07-17\n📝 Original message:I'll leave others to comment on whether we can get consensus on that, \nbut your years listed are inconsistent with everything else you've \nwritten. Should be:\n\nblock 400,000 = 2MB (2016)\nblock 500,000 = 4MB (2018)\nblock 600,000 = 8MB (2020)\n\nOn 17/07/2015 20:06, Chris Wardell via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e I would prefer a dynamic solution that did not necessitate a second \n\u003e hard fork down the road.\n\u003e\n\u003e I propose doubling the block size every 100k blocks (~2 years)\n\u003e\n\u003e block 400,000 = 2MB (2016)\n\u003e block 500,000 = 4MB (2017)\n\u003e block 600,000 = 8MB (2018)\n\u003e\n\u003e Chris\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Ross Nicoll via bitcoin-dev \n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e I'd back this if we can't find a permanent solution - 2MB gives us\n\u003e a lot more wiggle room in the interim at least; one of my concerns\n\u003e with block size is 3 transactions per second is absolutely tiny,\n\u003e and we need space for the network to search for an equilibrium\n\u003e between volume and pricing without risk of an adoption spike\n\u003e rendering it essentially unusable.\n\u003e\n\u003e I'd favour switching over by block height rather than time, and\n\u003e I'd suggest that given virtually every wallet/node out there will\n\u003e require testing (even if many do not currently enforce a limit and\n\u003e therefore do not need changing), 6 months should be considered a\n\u003e minimum target. I'd open with a suggestion of block 390k as a target.\n\u003e\n\u003e Ross\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On 17/07/2015 16:55, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Opening a mailing list thread on this BIP:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e BIP PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/173\n\u003e\u003e Code PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6451\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e The general intent of this BIP is as a minimum viable alternative\n\u003e\u003e plan to my preferred proposal (BIP 100).\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e If agreement is not reached on a more comprehensive solution,\n\u003e\u003e then this solution is at least available and a known quantity. A\n\u003e\u003e good backup plan.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Benefits: conservative increase. proves network can upgrade.\n\u003e\u003e permits some added growth, while the community \u0026 market gathers\n\u003e\u003e data on how an increased block size impacts privacy, security,\n\u003e\u003e centralization, transaction throughput and other metrics. 2MB\n\u003e\u003e seems to be a Least Common Denominator on an increase.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Costs: requires a hard fork. requires another hard fork down\n\u003e\u003e the road.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\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/20150717/201c99fb/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "e280fbff1183d736974cc94910b74fd83fcbadab13e86e6a98175fa17d6bd544a8983da1d1f0b30f62de48def653fe6f03bd6f78630a3a8475188b119c985b0f"
}