[bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

Pieter Wuille pieter.wuille at gmail.com
Sat Dec 26 23:01:04 UTC 2015

On Dec 26, 2015 23:55, "Jonathan Toomim" <j at toom.im> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2015, at 8:44 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> Furthermore, 75% is pretty terrible as a switchover point, as it
guarantees that old nodes will still see a 25% forked off chain temporarily.
> Yes, 75% plus a grace period is better. I prefer a grace period of about
4000 to 8000 blocks (1 to 2 months).

I think that's extremely short, even assuming there is no controversy about
changing the rules at all. Things like BIP65 and BIP66 already took
significantly longer than that, were uncontroversial, and only need miner
adoption. Full node adoption is even slower.

I think the shortest reasonable timeframe for an uncontroversial hardfork
is somewhere in the range between 6 and 12 months.

For a controversial one, not at all.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151227/9446849d/attachment.html>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list