Author: Martijn Meijering 2015-12-17 17:01:30
Published on: 2015-12-17T17:01:30+00:00
The author of a post is appealing the moderator's decision and believes that their post was not off-topic, but instead a compromise proposal that should be brought to the attention of developers. They propose a compromise solution made up of uncontroversial elements of other proposals that would discourage a contentious hard fork, provide immediate relief on fees and growth potential, and lock in a temporary modest growth path. The proposal involves both a hard fork and a soft fork, with gradual growth instead of big step functions. The details of the proposal include a gradual growth hard fork with a 95% activation threshold and a one-month grace period, as well as a soft fork Segregated Witness limited to 1MB for the first two years after deployment. The author suggests that the hard fork be coded, merged, and deployed first, followed by the soft fork, and then the hard fork activated provided it passes its vote. The proposal does not preclude further hard forks at any time, either before or after the proposed compromise hard fork, although it is specifically intended to discourage contentious hard forks.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T02:20:41.521810+00:00