From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
 Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 00:17:42 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.1-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <CADm_WcZpOxLJdxENe=GXqrp17C-Q2karunOvzegGz-NQ2b_AEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcZEbAe_+VXxS1eMKQ1SM3KiJwVDS50-GtfUPw-Mdd5O2w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcZEbAe_+VXxS1eMKQ1SM3KiJwVDS50-GtfUPw-Mdd5O2w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201509030017.43036.luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 100 repo
Precedence: list

On Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:58:54 PM Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev 
wrote:
> The repo: https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100

What is the purpose of the newly added 1 MB floor? It seems clear from the 
current information available that 1 MB is presently too high for the limit, 
and it is entirely one-sided to only allow increases when decreases are much 
more likely to be needed in the short term.

Must the new size limit votes use 11 bytes of coinbase? Why not just use a 
numeric value pushed after height? Since this is a hardfork, I suggest 
increasing the coinbase length to allow for 100 bytes *in addition* to the 
pushed height and size-vote.

I suggest combining 2 & 4 into a single rule lifting the 1 MB limit to 32 MB 
(or whatever value is deemed appropriate) to make it clear that the limit 
remains a part of the consensus protocol and p2p protocol limits are not to 
have an effect on consensus rules.

Furthermore, I suggest modifying the voting to require 50% to set the limit 
floor. This has the effect of merely coordinating what miners can already 
effectively do today by rejecting blocks larger than some collusion-
determined limit.

Thoughts?

Luke