6 ms·
> Luke Dashjr's hard-fork proposals, fulfilling his end of the HK agreement, [...] Which proposal are you talking about? Luke proposed a block size decrease, f
by hudon 10y ago
> Luke Dashjr's hard-fork proposals, fulfilling his end of the HK agreement, [...]
Which proposal are you talking about? Luke proposed a block size decrease, followed by a small increase in a decade... The HK agreement asks for a max block size increase, not a decrease and Luke never proposed such a hard fork. Again, I recommend reading the link I posted so we can discuss without false statements :)
- jlrubin 10y agohttps://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-blksize/bip-blksize.mediawiki https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-blksize/bip-blksize..., which includes a reference implementation. It does optionally include an immediate reduction, followed by a gradual increase. This was developed, as far as I understand, because Luke felt it fulfilled his personal end of the HK agreement -- to develop a hard-fork proposal. To quote the intro: > The block size limit is reduced to a reasonably safe value (optional), and gradually increased over time, eventually expanding beyond the current limits.
- hudon 10y agoThanks for the link with details. As you can see, the proposed hard fork starts with a decrease to ~300k. The increase past 1mb starts in 2024... that is in 7 years. It's not hard to see that this fails to meet the bar of a 2mb hard fork now. Luke is playing a game, basically saying: "you didn't specify exactly what year you wanted the block size increase in ;)"