News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Lightning Network Skepticism. Parent comment

Re:Lightning Network Skepticism by maaku on Saturday December 26, 2015 @01:56AM (#10793519)
Which has no relevance to this conversation about BU and block size. Block size is not a parameter you can force on upgraded nodes by soft-fork.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lightning Network Skepticism by dontbelieveyou on Saturday December 26, 2015 @02:15AM (#10793545)
You made the claim that under "Nakamoto consensus" the consensus parameters are not up for a vote. A correction seemed warranted.

> Block size is not a parameter you can force on upgraded nodes by soft-fork.

Isn't this what the Segregated Witness proposal[1] effectively does? The new limit proposed would be 4MB with an expected confirmed transaction throughput increase on the order of 2x.

To quote Pieter:

"Another way of looking at it, is that we raise the block size to 4 MB for the witness part, but the non-witness has same size."

[1] http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/s...

[ Parent | on HN ]