- 2023-09-30: initial post
- 2023-10-1: proposal live Mintscan
Parameter and new value
"title": "Reduce Maximum Block Size",
"description": "This Proposal reduces the maximum block size pursuant to: https://github.com/cometbft/cometbft/security/advisories/GHSA-hq58-p9mv-338c",
Forum post link
The following items summarize the voting options and what it means for this proposal:
YES - reduce maximum block size on the cosmos hub
NO - keep Gaia’s maximum block size the same
NO WITH VETO - A ‘NoWithVeto’ vote indicates a proposal either (1) is deemed to be spam, i.e., irrelevant to Cosmos Hub, (2) disproportionately infringes on minority interests, or (3) violates or encourages violation of the rules of engagement as currently set out by Cosmos Hub governance. If the number of ‘NoWithVeto’ votes is greater than a third of total votes, the proposal is rejected and the deposits are burned.
ABSTAIN - You wish to contribute to quorum but you formally decline to vote either for or against the proposal.
I see no mention of 1MB being the recommended amount besides a comparison between 21mb and 1mb block size.
What size is appropriate? What is the current average block size in Osmosis?
Overall Average Size of block range 11591000 - 11593151 is: 74.61 KB
Thanks to @nostradamus
1mb still allows for >10x the average size.
So I’m good with 1mb.
@faddat How do the concerns from Valardragon fit into this?
If I read it correctly the risk is deemed low. An expedited proposal is therefore unnecessary imo.
It also says that chains are advised to start an analysis. Going on chain without ever mentioning it is a grave gap as well. So this proposal should not pass imo since it leaves out enormous parts of information required to make an educated vote.
Hey @LeonoorsCryptoman – @valardragon and I talked a bit after his tweet. Basically, when planning this prop, I missed some factors that could be uniquie to osmosis and/or CosmWasm enabled chains, so we’re going to turn around on this one.
Might want to reach out to other validators, seems this is passing. Shame you only listened when Valardragon got involved.
I mainly deem is a bummer that using the forum as intended could have caused this proposal to not hit on-chain governance…
Like using the forum is intended to do. We switched from Commonwealth to the forum, also to facilitate one of the main people (@faddat) who had issues to get on Commonwealth to be able to be here and discuss again…
Will developers be able to upload smart contract updates with this? Why is 1MB appropriate?
Nobody knows, no research has been done…
No there’s about 30 pages of research at this point
And about 10 when this post was made.
But I likely would have broken contract uploads.
Please don’t assume stuff.
Part of me feeling should just release report.