Author: Mark Friedenbach 2015-06-12 18:20:21
Published on: 2015-06-12T18:20:21+00:00
In a mailing list, Jeff Garzik proposed removing the upper blocksize limit and enforcing a "soft" limit via miner vote recorded by hashing power. However, Peter Todd raised concerns about the protocol having miner influence over the vote through artificially generated transactions that could be claimed in their own blocks or conforming incentives among voters by choosing to be with the (slight) majority to minimize fees. He suggested simplifying Garzik's vote by using nVersion bits to either vote for an increase or decrease in blocksize by a fixed ratio. Transactions would also include an nVersion bit to vote for an increase or decrease, and only blocks with an identical vote could include those transactions, providing miners with a monetary incentive via fees to vote according to user wishes. To cast a "don't care" vote, an additional bit could be defined or transactions could be signed with both versions. John Dillon's proposal for proof-of-stake blocksize voting was also referenced.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T22:54:26.970118+00:00