MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+c4Zozac8=aMrAJ1N_6SR9eBD+w0e70cEnk9CG_2oZ72AS-8g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADm_WcasDuBsop55ZWcTb2FvccaoREg8K032rUjgQUQhQ3g=XA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBi=Mw7UnxG1-0-0ZTRqxrS5+28VmowyYrGP2MAvYiu_pA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcbrMyk-=OnQ-3UvnF_8brhn+X2NqRPbo5xUXsbcZpc0=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjbATqf8DXGF7obw9a=371zQ_S0EgTapnUmukAVenTneQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+c4Zozac8=aMrAJ1N_6SR9eBD+w0e70cEnk9CG_2oZ72AS-8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:48:43 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBhsKD8jd9Y9+ngXY5tKUheO3d4P1b47eYL=Uzpat+KJ2w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Andrea Suisani <sickpig@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135f304fc5eb405272e12a7
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation &
 moral hazard
Precedence: list

--001a1135f304fc5eb405272e12a7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Dec 18, 2015 2:13 AM, "sickpig@gmail.com" <sickpig@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1.75 x 0.5 + 1 x 0.5 = 1.375
>
> after six month.
>
> An hard-fork on the others side would bring 1.75 since the activation, am
I right?

Yes.

However, SW immediately gives a 1.75 capacity increase for anyone who
adopts it, after the softfork, instantly. They don't need to wait for
anyone else.

A hard fork is an orthogonal improvement, which is also needed if we don't
want to be stuck with a constant maximum ultimately.

Hardforks can however only be deployed at a time when all full node
software can reasonably have agreed to upgrade, while a softfork can be
deployed much earlier.

They are independent improvements, and we need both. I am however of the
opinion that hard forks need a much clearer consensus and much longer
rollout timeframes to be safe (see my thread on the security of softforks).

-- 
Pieter

--001a1135f304fc5eb405272e12a7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Dec 18, 2015 2:13 AM, &quot;<a href=3D"mailto:sickpig@gmail.com">sickpig=
@gmail.com</a>&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:sickpig@gmail.com">sickpig@gmail=
.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; 1.75 x 0.5 + 1 x 0.5 =3D 1.375<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; after six month.=C2=A0<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; An hard-fork on the others side would bring 1.75 since the activation,=
 am I right?</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Yes.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">However, SW immediately gives a 1.75 capacity increase for a=
nyone who adopts it, after the softfork, instantly. They don&#39;t need to =
wait for anyone else.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">A hard fork is an orthogonal improvement, which is also need=
ed if we don&#39;t want to be stuck with a constant maximum ultimately.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Hardforks can however only be deployed at a time when all fu=
ll node software can reasonably have agreed to upgrade, while a softfork ca=
n be deployed much earlier.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">They are independent improvements, and we need both. I am ho=
wever of the opinion that hard forks need a much clearer consensus and much=
 longer rollout timeframes to be safe (see my thread on the security of sof=
tforks).</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">--=C2=A0<br>
Pieter<br>
</p>

--001a1135f304fc5eb405272e12a7--