Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F45A2C for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 18:19:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f41.google.com (mail-vk0-f41.google.com [209.85.213.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E33061D2 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 18:19:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id k127so61486714vke.0 for ; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 10:19:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=1zMk0q5ENIEHOVC9z9GhHnyk0YdrZbtKplQnxe9QLJc=; b=cC+xJdFUWQD8GFnPcMCaDOYZDXjzEhZ+Cc+5RJPKYiE/bqfrnz8B2UEEP1dTmim31R unIkyoWl4arhukKjQFzfHuH8p4+UvjWitWF6YDIVfiaAvnS87zjcUQwx5Bj/uVK3ywFT Occt77sDPUTD7s0+Z8jU3ZQwIaOrCYuAn4Ko5QCD8RgsuzkbhZlc+Lsarf+nXCh/elPx ZDqnTi0Y4Q0zVNwkPTj2zFxn+1xg2TjnjVUELU7HepiTNBySBc5UIRPODAt6qWyZ6VWS Iyr795+hycmB+sT+O1TUbSu3Q2jQPt9qeneF3YVfoS2EAAV4vX4Zni3Swz6UFNIU95C5 YjpQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=1zMk0q5ENIEHOVC9z9GhHnyk0YdrZbtKplQnxe9QLJc=; b=NqCTo+7Bqt6GrNlQ5hRveACs/lOTQq6U9rOyc66QnrSJl1P7vPuoV3X66U4OHfHch6 rg+iJHqfK0uYZej4g+/lQjfZIAmpkuxsNktMaaAA0APsLmVvQZ5yixe9EJn8EjB2Ssht bZ3R7SWSHozzcbXsOwVwNHiskfTbk2eyGFWQ+S5Y008hEfEN9DO24pyJTx9FGWi9DNuE vkPTbOEuJ9sM45CSE5yf6Dzmw0OZFNhFkdC8gusGaWGPNLbkyRd45SDxtJfg7WvAKwou Acp1YAUnl1qqRDxAAHbQHSxVAsDfYaqVeHJDggGiYBy08SNUrwQe9YmtKShv/KiyGZhz bvYA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kWyzuCXKMqmq/VjgvPqeronbILNdfp92FIwmJ7Kuji6nLF2zkCFE3wxsmf6/8pKCX7ciKEXa/E+R6h7A== X-Received: by 10.31.142.68 with SMTP id q65mr5362018vkd.83.1486405183887; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 10:19:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.49.77 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 10:19:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201702052302.29599.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201702052302.29599.luke@dashjr.org> From: "t. khan" Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 13:19:43 -0500 Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143703afa60ed0547e0ac53 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no 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, 08 Feb 2017 01:43:26 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP 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: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 18:19:46 -0000 --001a1143703afa60ed0547e0ac53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any block size >increase hardfork ever. Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how did you come to this conclusion? >Your version doesn't address the current block size >issues (ie, the blocks being too large). Why do you think blocks are "too large"? Please cite some evidence. I've asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful to the discussion. - t.k. On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any block > size > increase hardfork ever. Your version doesn't address the current block size > issues (ie, the blocks being too large). So you've retained the only > certain- > DOA parts of my proposal, and removed the most useful part... I'm not sure > the > point. Also, your version is now EXCLUSIVELY a hardfork, so it makes no > sense > to keep the BIP 9 deployment at all - either it gets consensus or it > doesn't, > but miners have no part in deployment of it. > > On Sunday, February 05, 2017 9:50:26 PM Andrew C via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > Many people have expressed discontent with Luke-jr's proposed block size > > BIP, in particular with the decrease in size that would occur if it were > > to be activated prior to 2024. > > > > I have decided to modify the proposal to instead begin the increase > > steps at the current 1000000 byte limit. The increases and the time spam > > of each increase will remain the same, just that the increase begins > > from 1000000 bytes instead of 300000 bytes. > > > > Furthermore, instead of a fixed schedule from a fixed point in time, the > > increases will instead be calculated off of the MTP of the activation > > block (the first block to be in the active state for this fork). > > > > While this proposal shares many of the same issues with the one it > > modifies, I hope that it will be slightly less controversial and can > > allow us to move forward with scaling Bitcoin. > > > > The full text of the proposal can be found at > > https://github.com/achow101/bips/blob/bip-blksize/bip-blksize.mediawiki. > > My implementation of it is available at > > https://github.com/achow101/bitcoin/tree/bip-blksize > > > > > > Andrew > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a1143703afa60ed0547e0ac53 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>My BIP draft didn't make progress because the comm= unity opposes any block size
>increase hardfork ever.

<= div>Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how did= you come to this conclusion?

>Your version doe= sn't address the current block size
>issues (ie, the blocks being= too large).

Why do you think blocks are "= ;too large"? Please cite some evidence. I've asked this before and= you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful to the discussion.

- t.k.

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> = wrote:
My BIP draft didn't make progress because th= e community opposes any block size
increase hardfork ever. Your version doesn't address the current block = size
issues (ie, the blocks being too large). So you've retained the only ce= rtain-
DOA parts of my proposal, and removed the most useful part... I'm not s= ure the
point. Also, your version is now EXCLUSIVELY a hardfork, so it makes no sen= se
to keep the BIP 9 deployment at all - either it gets consensus or it doesn&= #39;t,
but miners have no part in deployment of it.

On Sunday, February 05, 2017 9:50:26 PM Andrew C via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Many people have expressed discontent with Luke-jr's proposed bloc= k size
> BIP, in particular with the decrease in size that would occur if it we= re
> to be activated prior to 2024.
>
> I have decided to modify the proposal to instead begin the increase > steps at the current 1000000 byte limit. The increases and the time sp= am
> of each increase will remain the same, just that the increase begins > from 1000000 bytes instead of 300000 bytes.
>
> Furthermore, instead of a fixed schedule from a fixed point in time, t= he
> increases will instead be calculated off of the MTP of the activation<= br> > block (the first block to be in the active state for this fork).
>
> While this proposal shares many of the same issues with the one it
> modifies, I hope that it will be slightly less controversial and can > allow us to move forward with scaling Bitcoin.
>
> The full text of the proposal can be found at
> https://github.com/achow= 101/bips/blob/bip-blksize/bip-blksize.mediawiki.
> My implementation of it is available at
> https://github.com/achow101/bitcoin/= tree/bip-blksize
>
>
> Andrew
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a1143703afa60ed0547e0ac53--