[bitcoin-dev] BIP 102 - kick the can down the road to 2MB

Peter Todd pete at petertodd.org
Wed Jul 22 22:30:25 UTC 2015

Hash: SHA256

Sorry, but I think you need to re-read my first message. What you've written below has nothing to do with what I actually said re: how you're BIP102 and associated pull-req doesn't measure miner consensus.

On 22 July 2015 13:43:19 GMT-04:00, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
>bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> I don't agree with you at all.
>> This is a case where if Jeff doesn't understand that issue, he's
>> proposing changes that he's not competent enough to understand, and
>> save us a lot of review effort if he left that discussion. Equally,
>> is in a position in the dev community where he should be that
>> if he actually isn't it does a lot of good for the broader community
>> change that opinion.
>> I personally *don't* think he's doing that, rather I believe he knows
>> full well it's a bad patch and is proposing it because he wants to
>> discussion towards a solution. Often trolling the a audience with bad
>> patches is an effective way to motivate people to respond by writing
>> better ones; Jeff has told me he often does exactly that.
>mmmm kay.  Let's try to keep it technical, please.
>2MB is a limit that has been discussed as a viable next-step, meeting
>the most consensus.
>2MB gets beyond the 1MB hard fork issue, while still remaining within a
>safety cap that should ensure the system does not go "off the rails" as
>some has predicted.
>Security, privacy and centralization are not going to disappear at 2MB.
>Further, a limited step gains valuable field data for judging whether
>further steps are warranted - thus informing the "better block size
>solution" development process.
>Finally, as stated in the initial PR, it is intended as a viable
>should we reach a point of criticality where the user community feels a
>block size increase is warranted, yet cannot reach consensus on a
>all-consuming solution be it 20MB, flexcap, BIP 100, BIP 102, etc.
>I am open to suggestions for improving BIP 102.  The goal is a minimum
>complexity fallback that others have previously agreed was a useful
>kick-the-can compromise - a static 2MB cap.


More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list