I hate to bring this up, but following the logic stated in this thread, why not just go with BIP 101 rather than removing the cap entirely? I haven't heard anyone say that it moves too slowly in the cap increase.
Assuming we agree that it doesn't move too slowly, then BIP 101 is simply a safer method of removing the cap. It's a cap removal with training wheels. If there are those projecting that 101 moves too slowly in the cap increase, I retract my statement. I just haven't seen them as of yet.
Assuming we agree that it doesn't move too slowly, then BIP 101 is simply a safer method of removing the cap. It's a cap removal with training wheels. If there are those projecting that 101 moves too slowly in the cap increase, I retract my statement. I just haven't seen them as of yet.
The main objection to BIP101 is that it moves too fast (not too slowly) in order for home-based full nodes to keep up.
If we approximate BIP101's curve with a series of 4-year-lock-steps of a static limit, each requiring a hard fork, then the home-based demographic (which I consider important) can be salvaged.
As long as nodes/miners can efficiently communicate block size limit negotiations, then I think we'll witness what I call "spontaneous consensus" events
sort of like a phase change in matter (liquid -> solid) but instead the 1 MB limit crumbles and a new precise limit at (e.g.) 8 MB is erected.
The hassle of a hard fork is an important feature of the process, not a burden.
Ever wondered why evolutionists cannot wrap their heads about the fact that sexual reproduction consumes that much energy?
Well, here is your answer. Erecting the new 8Mb limit is definitely pointing you in the right direction, Peter R.
