[bitcoin-dev] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase
jtimon at jtimon.cc
Mon Aug 17 15:54:33 UTC 2015
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Ross Nicoll <jrn at jrn.me.uk> wrote:
> Potentially daft question, why not use a minimum height? Yes, it's
> imprecise, but over an extended period of time they're good enough IMHO.
> I'd have to do more careful calculations to confirm, but block 388,000
> should be about right as a minimum.
BIP99 (still a draft too) currently recommends a minimum height plus
95% mining upgrade confirmation (aka "miner voting") after that for
But general hardfork activation discussion is still inconclusive in
The code for the example uncontroversial hardfork proposed in bip99 is
But I haven't created a PR for either the code or the bip yet.
More information about the bitcoin-dev