Thoughts from 2013 (Outside the current emo-drama) ...
http://blog.oleganza.com/post/43677417318/economics-of-block-size-limit
Can any members of the self appointed Plutocratic League for Ending Bitcoins Servicability please provide references to any post of Satoshi's that emphatically states that the block size is intended to be a hard limit? ... annnnd don't do a cut and paste cherry pick, link it so we see it in context.
http://blog.oleganza.com/post/43677417318/economics-of-block-size-limit
Can any members of the self appointed Plutocratic League for Ending Bitcoins Servicability please provide references to any post of Satoshi's that emphatically states that the block size is intended to be a hard limit? ... annnnd don't do a cut and paste cherry pick, link it so we see it in context.
He put the limit in the source code.
It's up to you to find a quote of him suggesting it'd have to be removed.
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
@davout: In the parallel universe (a forked chain if you wish) where the failed raid 1+0 array thing didn't happen, a post
Unluckily my memory failed to remember any details of the actual thread contents. The only thing I know was that satoshi and others were arguing about a code change.
Could you please provide me the link again? Thanks in advance.
edit: fixed typo