Post
๐Ÿ“… Original date posted:2015-08-18 ๐Ÿ“ Original message:As an aside, combining reward halving with block size limit doubling would have probably been a good idea :) > On Aug 18, 2015, at 3:51 PM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > -> You need to take into account the reward halving, likely to be in 3Q2016. Forks and reward halving at the same time would possibly be a bad combination. > > -> The original proposed date for the fork was December 2015. It was pushed back to January as December is a busy period for a lot of people and businesses. Likewise, June is a busy period for people. July / August is a good period as it is quiet because people go on holiday. A window of 2 months during holiday periods is better than starting in June. January 2016 is better, mainly because of the excessive reward halving chatter likely to be going on.. > > .. > Proposal (parameters in ** are my recommendations but negotiable): > > 1. Today, we all agree that some kind of block size hardfork will happen on t1=*1 June 2016* > > 2. If no other consensus could be reached before t2=*1 Feb 2016*, we will adopt the backup plan > > 3. The backup plan is: t3=*30 days* after m=*80%* of miner approval, but not before t1=*1 June 2016*, the block size is increased to s=*1.5MB* > > 4. If the backup plan is adopted, we all agree that a better solution should be found before t4=*31 Dec 2017*. > .. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150818/a9a42330/attachment-0001.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150818/a9a42330/attachment-0001.sig>
0
๐Ÿ“… Original date posted:2015-08-19 ๐Ÿ“ Original message:On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:54 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > As I understand, there is already a consensus among core dev that block size > should/could be raised. The remaining questions are how, when, how much, and > how fast. These are the questions for the coming Bitcoin Scalability > Workshops but immediate consensus in these issues are not guaranteed. > > Could we just stop the debate for a moment, and agree to a scheduled > experimental hardfork? > > Objectives (by order of importance): > > 1. The most important objective is to show the world that reaching consensus > for a Bitcoin hardfork is possible. If we could have a successful one, we > would have more in the future Apart from classifying all potential consensus rule changes and recommend a deployment path for each case, deploying an uncontroversial hardfork is one of the main goals of bip99: lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009837.html > 2. With a slight increase in block size, to collect data for future > hardforks The uncontroversial hardfork doesn't need to change the maximum block size: there's plenty of hardfork proposals out there, some of them very well tested (like the proposed hardfork in bip99). > 1. Today, we all agree that some kind of block size hardfork will happen on > t1=*1 June 2016* I disagree with this. I think it should be schedule at least a year after it is deployed in the newest versions. Maybe there's something special about June 2016 that I'm missing.
0