<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Matt Corallo <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bitcoin-list@bluematt.me" target="_blank">bitcoin-list@bluematt.me</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">The point of the hard block size limit is exactly because giving miners<br>
free rule to do anything they like with their blocks would allow them to<br>
do any number of crazy attacks. The incentives for miners to pick block<br>
sizes are no where near compatible with what allows the network to<br>
continue to run in a decentralized manner.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Miners can always reduce the block size (if they coordinate). Increasing the maximum block size doesn't necessarily cause an increase. A majority of miners can soft-fork to set the limit lower than the hard limit.<br><br></div><div>Setting the hard-fork limit higher means that a soft fork can be used to adjust the limit in the future. <br><br></div><div>The reference client would accept blocks above the soft limit for wallet purposes, but not build on them. Blocks above the hard limit would be rejected completely.<br></div></div></div></div>