Actually, BitUsher, I did mention this to you
on page 3. It's been a fast discussion and we forget things, so no worries.
Correct... thanks. This is interesting stuff.
Does BU have any sig-ops limits for CVE-2013-2292 like what Gavin proposed here -
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/cc1a7b53629b265e1be6e212d64524f709d27022 of is BU stuck to standard 20k ?
I see a brief mention of it here -
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-code-review.359/ nothing confirmed.
Most of my interest is with the experimental stuff discussed by testing1567 as well as some interesting new attack vectors opened up politcially by empowering the nodes with developmental decisions. There are some topics that need further analysis.
This does get me interested in a potential oracle or DAO potentially having the role to determine maxBlockSize by analyzing technical merits/limitations at a higher weight than user demand which could be used to influence a more dynamic block adjustment.
Note to small block adherents: Despite the name, Bitcoin Unlimited is not a "big blocks" implementation. It's simply an implementation that doesn't include a locked-down blocksize as part of the package. It lets the user set it. It could be 500kB if you like.
There are indeed many misunderstandings. As a point of clarification 1) Very few of the core developers are "small block adherents", besides 1-2 developers , all suggest raising maxBlockSize. 2) testing1567 indicated " My other issue with BU is it lacks a way to move the blocksize down, only up." is this true for nodes with BU(I am aware that miners can set the limit to anything.)