4 ms·
Increasing the maximum block size would cause a hard blockchain fork. That sort of thing has been done before on a couple of occasions but it's by no means a sm
by DavidSJ 12y ago
Increasing the maximum block size would cause a hard blockchain fork. That sort of thing has been done before on a couple of occasions but it's by no means a small deal.
- nwh 12y agoYou make them sound casual, bitcoin has has really only had one hard forking change to enable pay-to-script transactions.
- maaku 12y ago> bitcoin has has really only had one hard forking change to enable pay-to-script transactions. ... which wasn't a hard fork. The only hard fork so far was the move from BDB to LevelDB for chain state data.
- makomk 12y agoActually, if I recall correctly the only hardfork so far was accidental. It's far from clear that a deliberate hardfork would ever get community support, particularly given that some of the core developers are strongly opposed to increasing the block size and think that everyone should move to online wallet services and off-chain transactions for small payments instead.
- DavidSJ 12y agoThere have been two. The incident you're thinking of was accidental at first, then done deliberately with notice two months later: http://siliconangle.com/blog/2013/05/13/bitcoin-blockchain-hard-fork-coming-may-15th-final-warning/ http://siliconangle.com/blog/2013/05/13/bitcoin-blockchain-h... When I wrote my comment I was also thinking of https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827.0 from 2010, but on a cursory glance it looks like that was resolved with a soft fork, which is possible because the rules were made more restrictive rather than more permissive.