3 ms·

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/be9a9a3d2253ceccf123572b97a890c489a5a9be/src/main.cpp#L3175-L3185 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/be9a9a3d2253ce

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/be9a9a3d2253ceccf123572b97a890c489a5a9be/src/main.cpp#L3175-L3185 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/be9a9a3d2253ceccf123...

maaku 11y ago
Um, I'm not sure why you are pointing to that? ISM is used for soft-fork upgrades, which do not revert existing consensus rules. You can have a ISM vote over a new block size, but old clients will still reject the bigger blocks.
- dontbelieveyou 11y ago
  The upgrades are triggered by a super-majority of blocks of a certain version. This version maps to a possible new consensus rule. Block creation is a product of computational work. Therefore there is a precedent for CPUs/ASICs voting on the consensus rules of the system. > ISM is used for soft-fork upgrades, which do not change existing consensus rules. "Soft-forks" do change existing consensus rules. Will a miner's v1 blocks be accepted by the majority of the network today?
  - maaku 11y ago
    Which has no relevance to this conversation about BU and block size. Block size is not a parameter you can force on upgraded nodes by soft-fork.
    - dontbelieveyou 11y ago
      You made the claim that under "Nakamoto consensus" the consensus parameters are not up for a vote. A correction seemed warranted. > Block size is not a parameter you can force on upgraded nodes by soft-fork. Isn't this what the Segregated Witness proposal[1] effectively does? The new limit proposed would be 4MB with an expected confirmed transaction throughput increase on the order of 2x. To quote Pieter: "Another way of looking at it, is that we raise the block size to 4 MB for the witness part, but the non-witness has same size." [1] http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/s...

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/be9a9a3d2253ceccf123572b97a890c489a5a9be/src/main.cpp#L3175-L3185 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/be9a9a3d2253ceccf123...

maaku 11y ago

Um, I'm not sure why you are pointing to that? ISM is used for soft-fork upgrades, which do not revert existing consensus rules. You can have a ISM vote over a new block size, but old clients will still reject the bigger blocks.

dontbelieveyou 11y ago
The upgrades are triggered by a super-majority of blocks of a certain version. This version maps to a possible new consensus rule. Block creation is a product of computational work. Therefore there is a precedent for CPUs/ASICs voting on the consensus rules of the system. > ISM is used for soft-fork upgrades, which do not change existing consensus rules. "Soft-forks" do change existing consensus rules. Will a miner's v1 blocks be accepted by the majority of the network today?
- maaku 11y ago
  Which has no relevance to this conversation about BU and block size. Block size is not a parameter you can force on upgraded nodes by soft-fork.
  - dontbelieveyou 11y ago
    You made the claim that under "Nakamoto consensus" the consensus parameters are not up for a vote. A correction seemed warranted. > Block size is not a parameter you can force on upgraded nodes by soft-fork. Isn't this what the Segregated Witness proposal[1] effectively does? The new limit proposed would be 4MB with an expected confirmed transaction throughput increase on the order of 2x. To quote Pieter: "Another way of looking at it, is that we raise the block size to 4 MB for the witness part, but the non-witness has same size." [1] http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability/ http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/s...