Post
๐
Original date posted:2015-08-18
๐ 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
0
0
๐
Original date posted:2015-08-19
๐ 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
0
0