From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
 Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:29:16 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.1-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <CADm_WcZKoMAhYvXbFMbE+5K9HOD75YkQu8_qTW4S6YN6ZMrfjA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcZKoMAhYvXbFMbE+5K9HOD75YkQu8_qTW4S6YN6ZMrfjA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201507172029.17056.luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 102 - kick the can down the road to 2MB
Precedence: list

On Friday, July 17, 2015 3:55:19 PM Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> BIP PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/173

I'm concerned that miners are prematurely bumping their soft limit to 1 MB 
lately. The only reason block size limit lifting is remotely reasonable is if 
we can trust miners to at the very least keep their soft limits set at a 
manageable size, but this assumption appears to already be failing in 
practice.

We are unlikely to approach 1 MB of actual volume by November, so I would 
prefer to see the activation date on this moved later - maybe November 2016, 
if not 2017. It would also be an improvement to try to follow reasonably-
expected bandwidth increases, so 15% (1.15 MB) rather than doubling. Doubling 
in only a few months seems to be far from a "conservative" increase.

If we can get some kind of commitment from miners not to move their soft 
limits beyond 1 MB until some future-agreed-on point, maybe the BIP is 
acceptable as-is.

On Friday, July 17, 2015 4:12:05 PM Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> It establishes a precedent for hard forks not to require a vote though.

Hardforks are not something where voting makes sense. They need consensus 
among /nodes/, not majority among /miners/. No hardfork has ever had such a 
vote.

Luke