Author: Tier Nolan 2015-06-26 13:47:24
Published on: 2015-06-26T13:47:24+00:00
In an email conversation between Adam Back and an unknown party, the purpose of a hard-cap was discussed. It was argued that it serves as a safety limit in case understanding about economics, incentives or game-theory is wrong in the worst case. BIP 100 and 101 were suggested to be combined to increase consensus. Block size updates could be aligned with the difficulty setting and based on the last 2016 blocks. Miners could leave the 1MB limit in place initially. Legacy clients would remain in the network until more than 80% of miners vote to raise the limit and a miner produces a bigger block. If the growth rate over-estimates hardware improvements, the devs could add a limit into the core client. The block size becomes min(miner's vote, core devs).
Updated on: 2023-06-10T00:19:40.477216+00:00