Author: Eric Lombrozo 2015-06-14 05:08:16
Published on: 2015-06-14T05:08:16+00:00
In an email exchange between developers, Eric Lombrozo explains the differences between BIP34 and BIP66 versus BIP100. Notably, BIP34 and BIP66 are soft forks whereas BIP100 has direct economic consequences. Moreover, BIP100 lends itself to greater corruptibility than the other two. The discussion then shifts to users’ role in determining block size limits, with Danny Thorpe questioning why Bitcoin users should have a say in block size limits since miners and Bitcoin node operators bear the burden of managing large blocks. Peter Todd proposes that transactions set flags determining whether or not they can be included in a block casting a specific vote, with votes being counted via nVersion bits. Furthermore, transactions may only be included in blocks with an identical vote, providing miners with a monetary incentive via fees to vote according to user wishes. Finally, Todd suggests that a “don’t care” vote could be cast by either defining an additional bit or signing the transaction with both versions.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T22:56:12.539318+00:00