Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8139AB14 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 2016 22:25:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com (mail-ob0-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B3F0100 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 2016 22:25:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f181.google.com with SMTP id wb13so133715988obb.1 for ; Sun, 07 Feb 2016 14:25:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=rwwVs6gDo+mxWRbB1suBK7xYDZXC4+vdT4Ig2VMUp/k=; b=x0d0z9KtB+Lh434dbYmJXYqwGkcdSOvssENC8vuwQ00WrJjLGZqXEV2+QZvCLIKQ6o yqGs74GLWcR38V/rXHdxabICkN5teef2IXcxXQVsvmjkjET+qIJiM2m3TC7NE+AYB+J5 cnvLzBb2To1HkaT1X0HrmH9mD4c6LOhNH6c2YFCqOv3/7pWB6/ODnx24eUsCh9KFYotY OtRAbpG613eykwKQPGLnc+3E1Vgb2/hGj+81ZIXE5rKR2s7G/pWCrgFwQYdmR860/oPU IbQca8tiB/SUNywYpgm37YpMjs9Kj8Iq9HRrS+aJletnzj04dfAXy/QVlhUfmIotZckv Sb0g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rwwVs6gDo+mxWRbB1suBK7xYDZXC4+vdT4Ig2VMUp/k=; b=NuB/j0vjiDZe7DHEd+mb2SkxhBCkpIyFOAwCvrPF65yOvJLcSWKrAI3yz9ObhcWogt tWyEhq/QpUKI5tmumP8LOIoN/UbX50ehDc58FIfrU4VvQe1LvBNVWLX/RrKOQeTONtOR CCvAuxtPzQt+vOMpWvjT0Z3FCvqhc58TQog1JFOISicCcGBi6waQOhN3riFgpmgMAxv4 8Zaivg442/4r+dDBNxtt6Ajv8RI+aUxNRtMMmxf4ytQChdWjwQpl2jsA/mnDb7FAgfhi BozswnmTz2aJ3uwTy2qpxzNfN09J+MX/Fob0GKvc3+r7AVoLhF9maOwpQqCaGgXVBON+ 2r8A== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOS/cI4Dd6CLMdEax3+0ZRNJJ8yW2vbwCC/IqOyhssV1KmIfyNiaK4G4T9Hec9xMBfQGS0SDc11ysFad8A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.131.194 with SMTP id oo2mr21137715obb.84.1454883940632; Sun, 07 Feb 2016 14:25:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.246.33 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Feb 2016 14:25:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201602062046.40193.luke@dashjr.org> <201602072101.15142.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 17:25:40 -0500 Message-ID: From: Steven Pine To: Corey Haddad Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01634b8a788f9a052b3590a8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 00:48:13 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2016 22:25:42 -0000 --089e01634b8a788f9a052b3590a8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I agree that it seems like a safe assumption that adoption would be faster, whether it is "very safe" and "significantly faster", whether it will be 6 times faster, all of those assumptions seems significantly less safe and robust to me. The nature of the bitcoin protocol, that it is a decentralized census based protocol involving currency, suggests to me that roll out schedules ought to be conservative with a minimum of assumptions. In light of the most recent protocol upgrade, 6 months for this hard fork seems to me to be the most conservative time frame with the fewest assumptions. As for why it needs to be so fast, ie what are the dangers of it being as slow as 6 months? Gavin writes: "I strongly disagree with the statement that there is no cost to a longer grace period. There is broad agreement that a capacity increase is needed NOW." ~~ "Broad agreement", that really seems to be another assumption, the fact that the debate has been as long and acrimonious as it has been suggests that there isn't broad agreement. Also, resorting to "SHOUTING" doesn't win any favors when it comes to engaging in reasonable discussion om the technical merits of a proposal. On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Corey Haddad wrote: > We don't have any evidence of how fast nodes will upgrade when faced with > an impending hard fork, but it seems like a very safe assumption that the > upgrade pace will be significantly faster. The hard fork case it is: > "upgrade or be kicked off the network". In the previous cases it has been, > "here's the latest and greatest, give it a go!". Also, there will be > alerts sent out warning people of the situation, prompting them to take > action. > > It is unclear if this will translate into more or less than 6x the > adoption speed of previous instances, but the idea that it would be faster > is solid. 28 days is aggressive, but again, it is only 28 days from when > the fork triggers. Compatible software is already available for anyone who > wants to prepare. > > It is also of significance that this proposed fork, and this debate, has > been going on for many, many months. If someone proposed a forking concept > today, wrote the BIP tomorrow, deployed it next week, miners adopted it > instantly, and 28 days later it was the flag day, those 28 days would be in > a different context. There is no surprise here. > > On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Is it me or did Gavin ignore Yifu's direct questions? In case you missed >> it Gavin -- >> >> ~ >> "We can look at the adoption of the last major Bitcoin core release to >> guess how long it might take people to upgrade. 0.11.0 was released on 12 >> July, 2015. Twenty eight days later, about 38% of full nodes were >> running that release. Three months later, about 50% of the network was >> running that release, and six months later about 66% of the network was >> running some flavor of 0.11." >> >> On what grounds do you think it is reasonable to assume that this update >> will roll out 6x faster than previous data suggested, as oppose to your own >> observation of 66% adoption in 6 month. or do you believe 38% node >> upgrade-coverage (in 28 days ) on the network for a hard fork is good >> enough? >> >> There are no harm in choosing a longer grace period but picking one short >> as 28 days you risk on alienating the nodes who do not upgrade with the >> aggressive upgrade timeline you proposed. >> ~~ >> >> When Gavin writes "Responding to "28 days is not long enough" : >> >> I keep seeing this claim made with no evidence to back it up. As I said, >> I surveyed several of the biggest infrastructure providers and the btcd >> lead developer and they all agree "28 days is plenty of time." >> >> For individuals... why would it take somebody longer than 28 days to >> either download and restart their bitcoind, or to patch and then re-run >> (the patch can be a one-line change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE from 1000000 to >> 2000000)?" >> >> ~~ >> >> Isn't Yifu's comment, evidence, the very best sort of evidence, it isn't >> propositional a priori logic, but empirical evidence that. As for why >> people take longer, who knows, we simply know from passed experience that >> it in fact does take longer. >> >> It's extremely frustrating to read Gavin's comments, it's hard to believe >> he is engaging in earnest discussion. >> >> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>> On Sunday, February 07, 2016 2:16:02 PM Gavin Andresen wrote: >>> > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < >>> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> > > On Saturday, February 06, 2016 5:25:21 PM Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev >>> wrote: >>> > > > If you have a node that is "old" your node will stop getting new >>> > > > blocks. The node will essentially just say "x-hours behind" with >>> "x" >>> > > > getting larger every hour. Funds don't get confirmed. etc. >>> > > >>> > > Until someone decides to attack you. Then you'll get 6, 10, maybe >>> more >>> > > blocks confirming a large 10000 BTC payment. If you're just a normal >>> end >>> > > user (or perhaps an automated system), you'll figure that payment is >>> good >>> > > and irreversibly hand over the title to the house. >>> > >>> > There will be approximately zero percentage of hash power left on the >>> > weaker branch of the fork, based on past soft-fork adoption by miners >>> (they >>> > upgrade VERY quickly from 75% to over 95%). >>> >>> I'm assuming there are literally ZERO miners left on the weaker branch. >>> The attacker in this scenario simply rents hashing for a few days in >>> advance >>> to build his fake chain, then broadcasts the blocks to the unsuspecting >>> merchant at ~10 block intervals so it looks like everything is working >>> normal >>> again. There are lots of mining rental services out there, and miners >>> quite >>> often do not care to avoid selling hashrate to the highest bidder >>> regardless >>> of what they're mining. 10 blocks worth costs a little more than 250 BTC >>> - >>> soon, that will be 125 BTC. >>> >>> Luke >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Steven Pine >> (510) 517-7075 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> > -- Steven Pine (510) 517-7075 --089e01634b8a788f9a052b3590a8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I agree that it seems like a safe assumption that adoption= would be faster, whether it is "very safe" and "significant= ly faster", whether it will be 6 times faster, all of those assumption= s seems significantly less safe and robust to me.

The na= ture of the bitcoin protocol, that it is a decentralized census based proto= col involving currency, suggests to me that roll out schedules ought to be = conservative with a minimum of assumptions. In light of the most recent pro= tocol upgrade, 6 months for this hard fork seems to me to be the most conse= rvative time frame with the fewest assumptions.

As= for why it needs to be so fast, ie what are the dangers of it being as slo= w as 6 months?

Gavin writes:

<= div>"I strongly disagree with the sta= tement that there is no cost to a longer grace period. There is broad agree= ment that a capacity increase is needed NOW."

~~
"Broad agre= ement", that really seems to be another assumption, the fact that the = debate has been as long and=C2=A0acrimonious as it has been suggests that t= here isn't broad agreement. Also, resorting to "SHOUTING" doe= sn't win any favors when it comes to engaging in reasonable discussion = om the technical merits of a proposal.
=C2=A0


On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Corey = Haddad <corey3@gmail.com> wrote:
We don't have any evidence of how fast node= s will upgrade when faced with an impending hard fork, but it seems like a = very safe assumption that the upgrade pace will be significantly faster.=C2= =A0 The hard fork case it is: "upgrade or be kicked off the network&qu= ot;.=C2=A0 In the previous cases it has been, "here's the latest a= nd greatest, give it a go!".=C2=A0 Also, there will be alerts sent out= warning people of the situation, prompting them to take action.

It is unclear if this will translate into more or less than 6x the = adoption speed of previous instances, but the idea that it would be faster = is solid.=C2=A0 28 days is aggressive, but again, it is only 28 days from w= hen the fork triggers.=C2=A0 Compatible software is already available for a= nyone who wants to prepare.

It is also of significance th= at this proposed fork, and this debate, has been going on for many, many mo= nths.=C2=A0 If someone proposed a forking concept today, wrote the BIP tomo= rrow, deployed it next week, miners adopted it instantly, and 28 days later= it was the flag day, those 28 days would be in a different context.=C2=A0 = There is no surprise here.

On Sun, F= eb 7, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev <bi= tcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Is it me or did Gavin ignore Yifu= 9;s direct questions? In case you missed it Gavin --

~
"We can look at the a= doption of the last major Bitcoin core release to guess how long it might t= ake people to upgrade. 0.11.0 was released on 12 July, 2015. Twenty=C2=A0eight days later<= span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">, about 38% of full nodes were running that= release.=C2=A0Three months l= ater, about 50% of the netwo= rk was running that release, and=C2=A0six months later=C2= =A0about 66% of the network was running some flavor of 0.11."
On what grounds do you think it is reasonable to assume that this updat= e will roll out 6x faster than previous data suggested, as oppose to your o= wn observation of 66% adoption=C2=A0in 6 month. o= r do you believe 38% node upgrade-coverage (in 28 days=C2=A0) on the network for a hard fork is good enough?

There= are no harm in choosing a longer grace period but picking one short as 28 = days you risk on alienating the nodes who do not upgrade with the aggressiv= e upgrade timeline you proposed.
~~

When Gavin writes "Responding to &= quot;28 days is not long enough" :

I keep seeing this= claim made with no evidence to back it up.=C2=A0 As I said, I surveyed sev= eral of the biggest infrastructure providers and the btcd lead developer an= d they all agree "28 days is plenty of time."

Fo= r individuals... why would it take somebody longer than 28 days to either d= ownload and restart their bitcoind, or to patch and then re-run (the patch = can be a one-line change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE from 1000000 to 2000000)?"

~~

Isn't Yifu's comment, evidence, the very best sort o= f evidence, it isn't propositional a priori logic, but empirical eviden= ce that. As for why people take longer, who knows, we simply know from pass= ed experience that it in fact does take longer.

It's extremely frus= trating to read Gavin's comments, it's hard to believe he is engagi= ng in earnest discussion.
<= br>
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Luke Dashjr v= ia bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<= /a>> wrote:
On Sunday, Fe= bruary 07, 2016 2:16:02 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 06, 2016 5:25:21 PM Tom Zander via bitcoin-= dev
wrote:
> > > If you have a node that is "old" your= node will stop getting new
> > > blocks. The node will essentially just say "x-hours beh= ind" with "x"
> > > getting larger every hour. Funds don't get confirmed. et= c.
> >
> > Until someone decides to attack you. Then you'll get 6, 10, m= aybe more
> > blocks confirming a large 10000 BTC payment. If you're just a= normal end
> > user (or perhaps an automated system), you'll figure that pay= ment is good
> > and irreversibly hand over the title to the house.
>
> There will be approximately zero percentage of hash power left on the<= br> > weaker branch of the fork, based on past soft-fork adoption by miners = (they
> upgrade VERY quickly from 75% to over 95%).

I'm assuming there are literally ZERO miners left on the weaker = branch.
The attacker in this scenario simply rents hashing for a few days in advanc= e
to build his fake chain, then broadcasts the blocks to the unsuspecting
merchant at ~10 block intervals so it looks like everything is working norm= al
again. There are lots of mining rental services out there, and miners quite=
often do not care to avoid selling hashrate to the highest bidder regardles= s
of what they're mining. 10 blocks worth costs a little more than 250 BT= C -
soon, that will be 125 BTC.

Luke
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev



<= /div>--
Steven= Pine

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev





--
=
Steven Pine
(510) = 517-7075
--089e01634b8a788f9a052b3590a8--