Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 542BA68 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:24:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lb0-f180.google.com (mail-lb0-f180.google.com [209.85.217.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3D2514E for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:24:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbbtg9 with SMTP id tg9so120546171lbb.1 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 02:24:12 -0700 (PDT) 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=w9Mqg1I6uEhsp/LxfxGwRLpoBT+SFhq1lhHiQHI9xAE=; b=hwVNILsVgQ2QeTVt5SL+c4OoYJEkaO5HBPZod1Kurd2NNc1l5woZmrbi5eWqfuvsPW 9q2+90FOImnwms5XAFwbIpmcDxYzDWrGyNqMspIaWm4TK6rAnTs+8mIN2OpS57o8YBAS aSCcPb/knMr8dXXPqEMSfz0Bq+oV0Jc2dYKJOc9bCQfR5t3fammiJdtArh98PHAmDDDh 9NeHLqy1UxP8Y1FtL3xu73vZxMjsj0qvm3A5wkIoO06OKj20JmkfkgxetI4XKm6yzJTq y7zC2NjxlhDLy5PQtxLmq55wz2YqvfYkoUcTD0KLHCY7KwzkVuPbCnus6ps1Xx7Vxymy ignw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlU2Y+xXK1QIhrYWGEsJLG4bB4+p59yjMCL90E9rw6l38d5stxzUUqsDZoLauxa7GqUrejx MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.37.196 with SMTP id a4mr10498105lak.59.1439976251936; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 02:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 02:24:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 11:24:11 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: jl2012@xbt.hk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork? 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: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:24:18 -0000 On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:54 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev wrote: > As I understand, there is already a consensus among core dev that block size > should/could be raised. The remaining questions are how, when, how much, and > how fast. These are the questions for the coming Bitcoin Scalability > Workshops but immediate consensus in these issues are not guaranteed. > > Could we just stop the debate for a moment, and agree to a scheduled > experimental hardfork? > > Objectives (by order of importance): > > 1. The most important objective is to show the world that reaching consensus > for a Bitcoin hardfork is possible. If we could have a successful one, we > would have more in the future Apart from classifying all potential consensus rule changes and recommend a deployment path for each case, deploying an uncontroversial hardfork is one of the main goals of bip99: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009837.html > 2. With a slight increase in block size, to collect data for future > hardforks The uncontroversial hardfork doesn't need to change the maximum block size: there's plenty of hardfork proposals out there, some of them very well tested (like the proposed hardfork in bip99). > 1. Today, we all agree that some kind of block size hardfork will happen on > t1=*1 June 2016* I disagree with this. I think it should be schedule at least a year after it is deployed in the newest versions. Maybe there's something special about June 2016 that I'm missing.