|
Title: [2015-07-17] CD - Jeff Garzik Proposal to Double Block Size Limit Post by: DooMAD on July 19, 2015, 10:33:07 AM Looks like this is from two days ago, but haven't seen it posted in the press forum yet: http://www.coindesk.com/jeff-garzik-submits-proposal-to-double-bitcoin-block-size-limit/ (http://www.coindesk.com/jeff-garzik-submits-proposal-to-double-bitcoin-block-size-limit/)
We've had a 20MB proposal, an 8MB one and now just 2MB. Quote With the 1MB limit looking to be reached within the next few months, Garzik says his proposal, BIP 102, is an emergency 'fallback' if consensus among bitcoin's stakeholders is not reached. "If we can find a more complete solution, yes, by all means, let's throw BIP 102 in the trash," the developer told Reddit. Further details on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3djtko/bip_102_increase_block_size_limit_to_2mb_on_nov/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3djtko/bip_102_increase_block_size_limit_to_2mb_on_nov/) And quoting from GitHub: Quote This is an alternative to BIP 100, as a fallback if other consensus is not reached. It allows for limited experimentation to explore a size increase without going overboard. But it's not flexible, probably requires another hard fork, and still is an arbitrary econ policy not informed by the market, so inferior to BIP 100 (in the author's opinion). However, having a minimum-agreed backup plan is better than no plan at all. Title: Re: [2015-07-17] CD - Jeff Garzik Proposal to Double Block Size Limit Post by: LiteCoinGuy on July 19, 2015, 11:09:41 AM my last impression was, that we have already broad consensus about the 8 MB proposal.
(but in any case, it is wise to have that 2 MB idea too.) Title: Re: [2015-07-17] CD - Jeff Garzik Proposal to Double Block Size Limit Post by: zetaray on July 19, 2015, 11:10:05 AM The proposed limit keep falling. :-\
Users want larger blocks, faster confirmations and lower fees. Miners want smaller blocks, faster propagation, higher fees. Devs want larger blocks but a long term solution, ideal balance between fees, spam and blockchain bloat. Users do not have a voice in this "democracy". It's a miner's game and devs has to win their support. 2M is the lowest it can go, what excuse do the miners have now? Title: Re: [2015-07-17] CD - Jeff Garzik Proposal to Double Block Size Limit Post by: DooMAD on July 19, 2015, 11:23:08 AM The proposed limit keep falling. :-\ Users want larger blocks, faster confirmations and lower fees. Miners want smaller blocks, faster propagation, higher fees. Devs want larger blocks but a long term solution, ideal balance between fees, spam and blockchain bloat. Users do not have a voice in this "democracy". It's a miner's game and devs has to win their support. 2M is the lowest it can go, what excuse do the miners have now? At the moment, miners might be interested in keeping the blocksize small, but that's only because they're effectively subsidised by the block reward. But over time, as the block reward diminishes, they'll want to allow more transactions. Miners understand that artificially limiting the number of transactions has a knock-on effect that also limits the quantity of transaction fees they could be receiving. In future, they'll want more fee paying transactions to make their endeavors profitable. I still think it's likely they'll go for the 8MB proposal because 2MB means we'll be having this same debate again in the not-too-distant future. |