[bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit
mickeybob at gmail.com
Sat Jun 27 16:19:04 UTC 2015
That test seems like a reasonable suggestion; 840GB is not prohibitive
given today's computing costs. What other than the successful result of
that test would you want to see before agreeing to increase the block size
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> On 27 June 2015 10:39:51 GMT-04:00, Michael Naber <mickeybob at gmail.com>
> >Compromise: Can we agree that raising the block size to a static 8MB
> >with a plan to increase it further should demand necessitate except in
> >special case above is a reasonable path forward?
> It's not a reasonable path forward right now given the lack of testing
> done with 8MB+ blocks, among many other problems. A way to help make that
> appear more reasonable would be to setup a 8MB testnet as I suggested, with
> two years or so of 8MB blocks in history as well as a large UTXO set to
> test performance characteristics.
> Of course, that'll be a 840GB download - if that's unreasonable you might
> want to ask why 8MB blocks are reasonable...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitcoin-dev