really?
Technically speaking as far as I understand a soft fork should suffice to introduce the new needed OPCODE.
Sorry I should have said fork not hard fork. If you can get a super majority of miners to agree then you are most of the way towards a hard fork anyways.
So you're saying that since that svp proof needed for ensure the 2 way peg mechanism between the main and the said chains is bigger than the avg txn we need a larger max block size, correct? But a single SVP proof should suffice to perform hundreds of txns on the side chains (depending on the side chains implementation / design), so maybe the max block size increase could be modelled in a more "gentle" way.
Well I think if Bitcoin is to become anything other than a toy for crypto nerds we will have larger blocks regardless. However yes I believe that the block limit can and should be more "gentle". I believe for what it is worth something closer to 20% annualized over a longer period of time can get us to the same place without running the risk that block size growth will exceed Nielsen's Law in the short term.