I think that this might be a great way to move the soft limit, but I still think we need to have a (much higher) hard limit.
Did the earlier posts not sink in? The soft limit is not a proper limit, it is merely a thin road block designed to function as an early warning system. There's no "moving the soft limit." See my earlier post about analyzing the block chain to see the effect of the soft limit on miner behavior. As far as you are concerned, you should pretend as if the soft limit doesn't exist.
As for having a much higher hard limit, again did you not read the earlier posts? A 10 megabyte hard limit (which isn't even "much higher" in your terms) would raise the minimum bandwidth requirements to 17Mbps. Do you have any idea how many miners would be knocked off the network? In an earlier post you were just explaining the limitations of international bandwidth and also that solo miners would like to actually use their internet connections while they are mining. How can you then claim that we need a
much higher hard limit, with its accompanying
much higher minimum bandwidth requirements? Go back and re-read the chapter and then try answering the test questions again.
Don't be a dick. I read your posts. I believe that I understood them, but apparently you didn't understand my arguments. The soft limit is a voluntary limit at present, but there are things that can be done to disincentive miners from attempting to break that limit when it suits them. Did you not understand what I was trying to communicate concerning adding a 'soft limit' propagation rule to the clients? Truly harmless to the network and the client, and only somewhat damaging to the miner,
unless a significant enough of a minority of clients participate in this rule, and the miner with an overlarge block ends up with an orphaned block as a direct result. It doesn't have to work every time, just enough for the miners to notice.
would that basically be like checks and balances? miners are checked from overly large blocks?