From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	Jorge =?iso-8859-15?q?Tim=F3n?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 21:11:22 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.9-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <201511132228.47815.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CALqxMTFE9W0nxGHvcJN_Wz88b00o-K29GRTbHJv+VSpYAJKUNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDo7D1rrsjRef173HVkwBrDQ0uJAhtWKk0SmRFaqzX5VTw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDo7D1rrsjRef173HVkwBrDQ0uJAhtWKk0SmRFaqzX5VTw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <201511142111.24046.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: John Sacco <johnsock@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Block size doubles at each reward halving
	with max block size of 32M
Precedence: list

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 10:52:12 AM Jorge Tim=F3n via bitcoin-dev wr=
ote:
> Currently bip99 recommends 95% miner upgrade confirmation with version bi=
ts
> (bip9) for uncontroversial hardforks just like it does for uncontroversial
> softforks. It is true that in the case of hardforks miners don't decide a=
nd
> it's the whole economy who has to upgrade before activation, but "the who=
le
> economy" and "all users" includes miners, so why not use the only upgrade
> confirmation mechanism that we have available?

Actually, the economy does not necessarily include miners, and in fact the=
=20
present miner community for the most part does not overlap significantly wi=
th=20
economic activity. And at the same time, miners also have a tendency to=20
upgrade at a different rate than the economy. It might make sense to=20
incorporate a miner-trigger, but *only if* the flag is enabled in nodes by =
an=20
option disabled by default, and the BIP clearly specifies that miners must =
not=20
enable it until they perceive complete economic adoption of the change.

Luke