From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
 Erik <erik.fors@startmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 19:37:02 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.9-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <5645E095.4050704@startmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5645E095.4050704@startmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201511131937.03430.luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal - Max block size
Precedence: list

On Friday, November 13, 2015 1:07:33 PM Erik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hi devs. I was discussing the BIP proposals concerning max block size
> yesterday in the #bitcoin channel. I believe that BIP101 fully utilized
> will outperform consumer hardware soon or later and thereby centralize
> Bitcoin. I would therefore like to do a different proposal:

It doesn't look like you've considered BIP103 or newer BIPs? Especially, I'd 
suggest you look at and work with John Sacco who just the other day posted a 
BIP draft very similar-looking to yours. My overall impression of your summary 
is that it is unnecessarily over-complicated and underspecified. How does the 
2^(1/2) block size limit actually work? This is not a very precise number, so 
it seems liable to produce rounding errors in different implementations. 
Additionally, the miner voting thing seems pointless since miners can already 
softfork lower limits. It would be beneficial to express the current 
possibility so full nodes can enforce it, but this would be expressed as an 
unlimited simple-majority vote to reduce the limit. Probably it would be ideal 
to separate this off from the hardfork BIP, since it's fairly tangent to it.

Luke