Author: Chun Wang 2015-06-14 04:55:47
Published on: 2015-06-14T04:55:47+00:00
The discussion on block size limits for Bitcoin has been ongoing, with some suggesting that it should be removed entirely and enforced via miner vote. However, Peter Todd proposed a mechanism where transactions themselves could set a flag to determine whether or not they can be included in a block casting a specific vote. This would give users an influence over the miner vote, as miners would have a monetary incentive via fees to vote according to user wishes. Todd suggested simplifying Jeff Garzik's vote, so that one of the nVersion bits either votes for the blocksize to be increased or decreased by some fixed ratio, such as 2x or 1/2x the next interval.Danny Thorpe questioned why Bitcoin users should have a say in block size limits, stating that it is the miners and Bitcoin node operators who bear the burden of managing large blocks. However, Todd's proposal would allow for users to have an indirect influence over the miner vote, which could provide a solution to the ongoing debate on block size limits. John Dillon also proposed a proof-of-stake blocksize voting mechanism, which can be found in the link provided. The top three miners, Slush, Eligius, and BTC Guild, are mentioned in the context as well, stating that if they were still on top, the core developers would be happy to do BIP100 just like they did BIP34 and BIP66.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T22:53:48.719980+00:00