Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A9D04D3 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:57:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f182.google.com (mail-io0-f182.google.com [209.85.223.182]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1940110A for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:57:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iodv127 with SMTP id v127so169940100iod.3 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:57:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=YgQsYAGvcueCbS8pJFPe+vLI3+hDbjkIO4TyLYW60oA=; b=n/57x++w/TJc2e6iWQ2+q4uMl9I2y4mgygPInyllrBYyuJcTI+I89iEDtlKu6AhlgD 7JDzPmCo/73o/gW1Sgs6kDGun2uDvdKUNgCwRLRF8gDiL+7N6L2HBjwNhfkcZOqsDdpy Z7hvx88TVlmpIQveBa2b/ui0vawfRsbUSK9/rwzOrsEts8f+5Av//3XrYq7V1NnHjB81 TTvF9kCR3CYAqIg6Kd5Q9I8XKaK2tiHPJlo8iy7Gx5uKW0Iy7rVukjqOlKy6lEBiR8LY tBgXB5Q7STsMewo9WQbFPIdXc6dJUWOWRiujxAKkmeBJrCsWkylG9Kz0pssdqeD79Mnw qQYw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.46.86 with SMTP id i83mr6323406ioo.121.1439899031543; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.79.37.130 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:57:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:57:11 +0300 Message-ID: From: Micha Bailey To: "jl2012@xbt.hk" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1137949e49aa93051d949eb2 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:57:12 -0000 --001a1137949e49aa93051d949eb2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 A smaller block size would make this a soft fork, as unupgraded nodes would consider the new blocks valid. It would only make things that were allowed forbidden, which is the definition of a soft fork. For a hard fork, you need to allow something that was previously invalid. On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > s = 1.5MB. As the 1MB cap was set 5 years ago, there is no doubt that all > types of technology has since improved by >50%. I don't mind making it a > bit smaller but in that case not much valuable data could be gathered and > the second objective of this experiment may not be archived. > --001a1137949e49aa93051d949eb2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A smaller block size would make this a soft fork, as unupgraded nodes would= consider the new blocks valid. It would only make things that were allowed= forbidden, which is the definition of a soft fork. For a hard fork, you ne= ed to allow something that was previously invalid.

On Tuesday, Augus= t 18, 2015, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: s =3D 1.5MB. As the 1MB cap was set 5 years ago, there is no doubt that all= types of technology has since improved by >50%. I don't mind making= it a bit smaller but in that case not much valuable data could be gathered= and the second objective of this experiment may not be archived.
--001a1137949e49aa93051d949eb2--