Author: Erik Aronesty 2017-04-06 02:27:34
Published on: 2017-04-06T02:27:34+00:00
The email thread discusses the proposal to merge SegWit and a 2MB block size limit increase as a hard fork. The author notes that they appreciate minimal changes but questions whether this proposal needs to be released quickly. They suggest renaming the proposal to SegWit 8MB and discussing it solely in terms of block weights. The author also believes that a high consensus hard fork is preferable to a low consensus soft fork, but there is nothing to indicate that SegWit isn't already very high consensus except for a handful of pool operators protecting fee income. Additionally, miners who object to SegWit while pretending to like larger blocks may find excuses to object to this proposal too. The author expects any fork that requires 95% hash power to be vaporware. In response to another developer's comment about miner signaling, the author questions the relevance of miner signaling in a hard fork and eagerly awaits an explanation.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T23:12:30.399524+00:00