Quote from: -ck on July 11, 2017, 05:05:27 AM

Quote from: dinofelis on July 11, 2017, 04:56:42 AM

Quote from: ComputerGenie on July 11, 2017, 02:51:10 AM

Quote from: Sithara007 on July 11, 2017, 02:21:44 AM

...This needs to be stopped and making 1 MB the minimum size is a good step in ensuring that.

There it is, the dumbest thing I've read in 59 pages. Undecided

Q: And what happens when there isn't 1MB worth of segwit transactions?
A: 1 hour block times. Roll Eyes

Well, I don't see why a miner wouldn't fill up the block to 1 MB with dummy transactions, just to not waste his hash rate, and get the next block while all others are waiting to start to mine until they can fill up a 1 MB block...

A lower limit on block size will never be a problem, because miners can make blocks as large as they want with own dummy transactions. This makes that miners cannot play games with small blocks as they are now not part of the protocol any more, and all "relative network advantage" between 1 MB and 2 MB is much smaller than between 10 KB and 1 MB.

Moronic, encouraging miners to create pointless transactions to make big enough blocks... Let's help contribute to blockchain bloat.

For the record, by the way, it only needs to be one block to big enough to break the deadlock but it's still a stupid mechanism to secure the hardfork.

Well, it is a very smart way to make in a very very simple way, a bilateral hard fork, which is a GOOD thing. And BTW, nobody cars about "block chain bloat". Mining pools have enough hardware to do so, and normal users only need light wallets. Those really wanting to play with a full node in their basement will not see much difference with today, where the average block size is already close to 1 MB.

I never thought about this simple way of making a bilateral hard fork. Usually, one thinks about a modification in some or other format or so. But obliging >1MB is genius and simple.