Additional Blocks: Soft-fork blocksize increase (WIP)

[Roy Badami]

Here's a very quick write-up of an idea I had for a soft-fork blocksize increase. I haven't thought about this much yet and it's quite probable that the idea is flawed.

https://gist.github.com/roybadami/205a68c431fd9b6ca586584e65c5f727

I will say that I find it somewhat ugly. I would much rather HF a blocksize increase. But it is, to my mind, less ugly (and conceptually much simpler) than any other not-a-hardfork blocksize increase proposal I've seen to date. Would love feedback on the idea.

 

[HostFat]

Maybe you can give a look at this
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/increasing-the-blocksize-as-a-generalized-softfork.776/

 

[Roy Badami]

Thanks for that link - looks very similar to what I came up with.
[doublepost=1497383171,1497382270][/doublepost]Additional Blocks would indeed appear to be an example of a generalised soft fork as defined in the post you reference, and is very similar to the example given of using a generalised soft fork for a blocksize increase.

The only substantive difference between Additional Blocks and the blocksize increase proposal in that post is that I can see is that I move all economic activity to the additional block - the coinbase transaction in the base block is zero value.

roy

 

[Tomas van der Wansem]

Although I think this is inferior to a blocksize increase, I really like the idea of zeroing-out the original block.

In my opinion this makes this superior to the "generalized" softforks, extension blocks, or drivechain as all these proposals risk the reduction of fungibility due to creating "second class citizens.".