<div dir="ltr">On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Peter Todd <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pete@petertodd.org" target="_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
</span>The soft-limit is there miners themselves produce smaller blocks; the<br>
soft-limit does not prevent other miners from producing larger blocks.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I wonder if having a "miner" flag would be good for the network.<br><br></div><div>Clients for general users and merchants would have a less strict rule than the rule for miners. Miners who don't set their miners flag might get orphaned off the chain.<br><br></div><div>For example, the limits could be setup as follows.<br><br></div><div>Clients: 20MB<br></div><div>Miners: 4MB<br><br></div><div>When in "miner mode", the client would reject 4MB blocks and wouldn't build on them. The reference client might even track the miner and the non-miner chain tip.<br><br></div><div>Miners would refuse to build on 5MB blocks, but merchants and general users would accept them.<br></div><div><br></div><div>This allows the miners to soft fork the limit at some point in the future. If 75% of miners decided to up the limit to 8MB, then all merchants and the general users would accept the new blocks. It could follow the standard soft fork rules.<br><br></div><div>This is a more general version of the system where miners are allowed to vote on the block size (subject to a higher limit).<br><br></div><div>A similar system is where clients track all header trees. Your wallet could warn you that there is an invalid tree that has > 75% of the hashing power and you might want to upgrade.<br></div></div></div></div>