On block sizes

Mike Hearn
Nov 2, 2015 · 8 min read

BIP 100

Core is against miner voting

- Hard fork method:  Leaning towards "if (timestamp > X)" flag day hard fork Y months in the future.  Set high bit in version, resulting in a negative number, to more cleanly fork away.  "miner advisement" - miners, as they've done recently, signal non-binding (Bitcoin Core does not examine the value) engineering readiness for a hard fork via coinbase moniker. Some fork cancellation method is useful, if unsuccessful after Z time elapses.

Core won’t raise the limit

Conflicts of interest

Developer consensus is a lie

> [thomas zander] The point is that Bitcoin Core claims to have 
> a consensus mechanism and sticks to "no change" on not
> reaching a consensus. And that rule is the reason why
> bigger blocks were blocked for years.

[gmaxwell] You're repeating Mike's claims there-- not anyone elses.

Why December won’t change anything

Conclusion

Mike Hearn

Written by

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade