MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:04:31 +0800
From: joe2015@openmailbox.org
To: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABaSBazMYw6ou1=GDvi5XxNRgWxsQxTu9jU+PaqW9u9rAe=D-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1bf64a5b514d57ca37744ae5f5238149@openmailbox.org>
	<CABaSBazMYw6ou1=GDvi5XxNRgWxsQxTu9jU+PaqW9u9rAe=D-w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8088b376ed29f3ea0af67b7567189e31@openmailbox.org>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.6
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Increasing the blocksize as a (generalized)
 softfork.
Precedence: list

On 2015-12-21 02:17, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 4:56 AM, joe2015--- via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
>> An Arbitrary Block-size Increase Via a Generalized Softfork
> 
> This seems conceptually similar to "extension blocks":
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008356.html
> [1]
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=283746.0 [2]
> http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-12-20.log [3]
> 
> "Extended blocks" are also mentioned over here too:
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1296628.msg13307275#msg13307275
> [4]

The main difference is that my proposal does not introduce different 
"tiers" of blocks, and does not require uses to move coins to manually 
move coins between these tiers.

Instead, my proposal uses a single flat block format that is essentially 
the same as the current block format; only bigger.

The main point is that such a change does not require a hardfork with 
global consensus, as is commonly assumed, but rather can be deployed 
like a softfork using the method described in my original post.

--joe.