Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F38A28CC for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 03:00:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from APC01-HK2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-oln040092255048.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.255.48]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBDD4176 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 03:00:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hotmail.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=Ar8k8XBRETx7Pe7gavd6XDOa9aNKdhTLfctIq8DTsDQ=; b=fPD3eEYCD7pJxNSjpUhFTqqrglp9jKGqOxNTKrCBwvKV/x1YT6uvrqsEdtJnio1BUD45DjmvULzRyX5Tb6svFzxeXwXyutNj4M0pQjXI7OvxaYqfeZ91Aht0nmK9C4NY+m3S+myueLxuEpoKl411GgxBXXhmFIZYipdhY69cCXq5NzZt8e1yHVYacdcnYHKlf3tepk5toIFxv9RENF5CifkRjwdawIBPuZd+R7F9u3OYAuI917s7QUB97g1ibu79c/NVT+cqreF0qnB5g+l5P3nc2zFQ580ECLD5Dhy0/xEwwVNOA+Dg8zbZJdpE/KtNdVeKUYPMjLPbeKzHXNzU7Q== Received: from PU1APC01FT003.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.252.58) by PU1APC01HT128.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.253.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.977.7; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 02:59:59 +0000 Received: from SINPR04MB1949.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.152.252.60) by PU1APC01FT003.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.252.95) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.977.7 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 02:59:59 +0000 Received: from SINPR04MB1949.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.116.153]) by SINPR04MB1949.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.116.153]) with mapi id 15.01.0991.021; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 02:59:58 +0000 From: Luv Khemani To: Juan Garavaglia , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Thread-Topic: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting Thread-Index: AQHSp+S4nQ4DjsxFiU+7a8C6k6bCq6GqgEGAgAAIZVSAAE7/AIAARr4C Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 02:59:58 +0000 Message-ID: References: , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: 112bit.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; 112bit.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=hotmail.com; x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:A2B77D5F3966BB6D2A3A1370F29403D1C9E7C998ED18CCCF5E0F16D36419247B; UpperCasedChecksum:2EEE75EEB3EFBC3D0054AC15B14AD75BF41C51AA00C073414B97193E965C4335; SizeAsReceived:8519; Count:42 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-tmn: [cRsuWzjO9UiZKDTgpeea66GHInwYFeD0] x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; PU1APC01HT128; 5:/Tu+9s5ZYBe5ismjGLVT5Y1vvdFNK9P0gbIZ+dPSDFswNLwqG/ftXwO7hi5LKFt8JMIZLUnMeSiamzSrx6qXFKilnv2TgzM/X3WqLfqghR0rYjGuDQd3fOv5lyAoBaX6M2FXeYXawYxJjEpEIpgnqw==; 24:9SHmVizqcKPxyxOUkej5M9/bdCfyUFvsGzp+jM0Jm4UyQzzesK99/8TuZ6ue2VWwqLhAbxBDOKbHN2si50qMd2o3m0yTKIVZV23oLDJWM3I=; 7:3sV0ny8K/wY8QKdcQ53BUYxGbIP4qjMTqogZangNtwd/v2JeR7LnVEyfv+vypKwzl6oDqJfji6NQgsHgMY4uRmBejBg+qT4WohKvD3aRwiJP0ZiH9hw1i8koTM/fPgBfkMfldGpGayO5AfmaDobe1RqWqk1e2JpkS71hHtXPFuSHlhFE/N8eWN+u20B1VWgIsWK3pwkLRh5wZUc5exO0kL7/zMTKJBRokNHTkCOzLtAlkY6L7YPSdV50AaKRMY2y4XdjqQ5xZPOj1p+UG1sG5tUE6BY1FM/4jznuntx3hndNEWbHvO9uQMqrk0lpru+9 x-incomingheadercount: 42 x-eopattributedmessage: 0 x-forefront-antispam-report: EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(7070007)(98901004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1901; SCL:1; SRVR:PU1APC01HT128; H:SINPR04MB1949.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 21432da5-9852-45fe-a9fa-08d4764fafc9 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(201702061074)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(2017031320274)(2017031322274)(1603101448)(1601125374)(1701031045); SRVR:PU1APC01HT128; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(444000031); SRVR:PU1APC01HT128; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:PU1APC01HT128; x-forefront-prvs: 0261CCEEDF spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_SINPR04MB19496F9AE5534BB0005D8391C2350SINPR04MB1949apcp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: hotmail.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 Mar 2017 02:59:58.7753 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PU1APC01HT128 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 03:11:39 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 03:00:04 -0000 --_000_SINPR04MB19496F9AE5534BB0005D8391C2350SINPR04MB1949apcp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Juan > I tend to believe more in Moore=92s law, Butters' Law of Photonics and= Kryder=92s Law all has been verified for many years and support that 32 MB= in 2020 are possible and equals or less than 1 MB in 2010. Protocol development, especially one in control of people's money cannot = be based on beliefs. Do you have actual data to show significant increases = in desktop CPU, memory and bandwidth? All empirical evidence points to the opposite. Intel has been struggling to eek out 5-10% gains for each generation of its= CPUs. The growth of the total blockchain size at 1MB alone is much faster = than this. CPU Core counts have also been stagnant for a decade. Disk Space growth has also been slowing and with the trend towards SSDs, av= ailable disk space in a typical PC has turned negative sharply. Regards Luv ________________________________ From: bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org on behalf of Juan Garavaglia via bitcoin-dev Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 6:36 AM To: Alphonse Pace; Wang Chun Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting Alphonse, Even when several of the experts involved in the document you refer has my = respect and admiration, I do not agree with some of their conclusions some = of their estimations are not accurate other changed like Bootstrap Time, Co= st per Confirmed Transaction they consider a network of 450,000,00 GH and t= oday is 3.594.236.966 GH, the energy consumption per GH is old, the cost of= electricity is wrong even when the document was made and is hard to find a= ny parameter used that is valid for an analysis today. Again with all respect to the experts involved in that analysis is not vali= d today. I tend to believe more in Moore=92s law, Butters' Law of Photonics and Kryd= er=92s Law all has been verified for many years and support that 32 MB in 2= 020 are possible and equals or less than 1 MB in 2010. Again may be is not possible Johnson Lau and LukeJr invested a significant = amount of time investigating ways to do a safe HF, and may be not possible = to do a safe HF today but from processing power, bandwidth and storage is t= otally valid and Wang Chung proposal has solid grounds. Regards Juan From: Alphonse Pace [mailto:alp.bitcoin@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:53 PM To: Juan Garavaglia ; Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com> Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting Juan, I suggest you take a look at this paper: http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers= /CDE+16.pdf It may help you form opinions based in science rather than wha= t appears to be nothing more than a hunch. It shows that even 4MB is unsaf= e. SegWit provides up to this limit. On Scaling Decentralized Blockchains fc16.ifca.ai On Scaling Decentralized Blockchains (A Position Paper) Kyle Croman 0 ;1, C= hristian Decker 4, Ittay Eyal , Adem Efe Gencer , Ari Juels 0 ;2, Ahmed Kos= ba 0 ;3, Andrew ... 8MB is most definitely not safe today. Whether it is unsafe or impossible is the topic, since Wang Chun proposed m= aking the block size limit 32MiB. Wang Chun, Can you specify what meeting you are talking about? You seem to have not r= eplied on that point. Who were the participants and what was the purpose o= f this meeting? -Alphonse On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Juan Garavaglia > wrote: Alphonse, In my opinion if 1MB limit was ok in 2010, 8MB limit is ok on 2016 and 32MB= limit valid in next halving, from network, storage and CPU perspective or = 1MB was too high in 2010 what is possible or 1MB is to low today. If is unsafe or impossible to raise the blocksize is a different topic. Regards Juan From: bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org [mailto:bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfound= ation.org] On Behalf = Of Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:24 PM To: Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com>; Bitcoin Protoc= ol Discussion > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting What meeting are you referring to? Who were the participants? Removing the limit but relying on the p2p protocol is not really a true 32M= iB limit, but a limit of whatever transport methods provide. This can lead= to differing consensus if alternative layers for relaying are used. What = you seem to be asking for is an unbound block size (or at least determined = by whatever miners produce). This has the possibility (and even likelihood= ) of removing many participants from the network, including many small mine= rs. 32MB in less than 3 years also appears to be far beyond limits of safety wh= ich are known to exist far sooner, and we cannot expect hardware and networ= king layers to improve by those amounts in that time. It also seems like it would be much better to wait until SegWit activates i= n order to truly measure the effects on the network from this increased cap= acity before committing to any additional increases. -Alphonse On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev > wrot= e: I've proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Consensus but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I would post this here again for comment. The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it. Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core. With this patch in core's next release, Bitcoin works just as before, no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three years. We don't yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core's release, they all become soft fork. We'll have enough time to discuss all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork. Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --_000_SINPR04MB19496F9AE5534BB0005D8391C2350SINPR04MB1949apcp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Juan


  &= gt;  I tend to believe more in Moore=92s law, Butters' Law of Photonic= s and Kryder=92s Law all has been verified for many years and support that = 32 MB in 2020 are possible and equals or less than 1 MB in 2010.

 

  Protocol development, especially one in control of people's money= cannot be based on beliefs. Do you have actual data to show significa= nt increases in desktop CPU, memory and bandwidth?


All empirical evidence points to the opposite. 

Intel has been struggling to eek out 5-10% gains for each generation of = its CPUs. The growth of the total blockchain size at 1MB alone is much=  faster than this.

CPU Core counts have also been stagnant for a decade.

Disk Space growth has also been slowing and with the trend towards SSDs,= available disk space in a typical PC has turned negative sharply.


Regards

Luv



From: bitcoin-dev-bounces@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org&= gt; on behalf of Juan Garavaglia via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 6:36 AM
To: Alphonse Pace; Wang Chun
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeti= ng
 

From: Alphonse Pace [mailto:alp.bitcoin@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:53 PM
To: Juan Garavaglia <jg@112bit.com>; Wang Chun <1240902@gma= il.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundatio= n.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeti= ng

 

Juan,

 

I suggest you take a look at this paper: http://fc16.ifca.ai/bit= coin/papers/CDE+16.pdf  It may help you form opinions based in science rather than what appears to be nothing more than= a hunch.  It shows that even 4MB is unsafe.  SegWit provides up = to this limit.

fc16.ifca.ai
On Scaling Decentralized Blockchains (A Position Paper) Kyle Croman 0 ;1, C= hristian Decker 4, Ittay Eyal , Adem Efe Gencer , Ari Juels 0 ;2, Ahmed Kos= ba 0 ;3, Andrew ...

 

8MB is most definitely not safe today.

 

Whether it is unsafe or impossible is the topic, since Wang Chun proposed m= aking the block size limit 32MiB.  

 

 

Wang Chun,


Can you specify what meeting you are talking about?  You seem to have = not replied on that point.  Who were the participants and what was the= purpose of this meeting?

 

-Alphonse

 

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Juan Garavaglia <jg@112bit.com> wrote:

From: bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org [mailto:bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfo= undation.org] On Behalf Of Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:24 PM
To: Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeti= ng

 

What meeting are you referring to?  Who were the participants?

 

Removing the limit but relying on the p2p protocol is not really a true 32M= iB limit, but a limit of whatever transport methods provide.  This can= lead to differing consensus if alternative layers for relaying are used.&n= bsp; What you seem to be asking for is an unbound block size (or at least determined by whatever miners produce).&nb= sp; This has the possibility (and even likelihood) of removing many partici= pants from the network, including many small miners.  

 

32MB in less than 3 years also appears to be far beyond limits of safety wh= ich are known to exist far sooner, and we cannot expect hardware and networ= king layers to improve by those amounts in that time.

 

It also seems like it would be much better to wait until SegWit activates i= n order to truly measure the effects on the network from this increased cap= acity before committing to any additional increases.

 

-Alphonse

 

 

 

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o= rg> wrote:

I've proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Consensus
but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than
one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I would
post this here again for comment.

The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should
be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.

Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its
limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to
remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in
the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block
halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is
the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be
in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.

With this patch in core's next release, Bitcoin works just as before,
no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there
will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and
exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three
years.

We don't yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size
limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like
BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so
on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core's
release, they all become soft fork. We'll have enough time to discuss
all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we
choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it
from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork.

Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxf= oundation.org
https:= //lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

 

 

--_000_SINPR04MB19496F9AE5534BB0005D8391C2350SINPR04MB1949apcp_--