Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1B6DEA7 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:02:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f180.google.com (mail-io0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27AC7FC for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:02:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f180.google.com with SMTP id 186so102301120iow.0 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:02:25 -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=swJ/zW7pk3dgaaoJH+v3iNu8uNxDuOVcCojJ6FzWugk=; b=CnktdavzISzjmAPrrW8JFWGjzWpuAPd8bFhMrevnOBcSPIX8Qj7VH6fsjDVs2uA5hT eIuYYCqjEjkVIBv0yowfhaPZT/cOyB7jYBCH/Rn5sBnGsmBD0MXgd9szRgAQPxKxay9g weXBeVy36CtNlteZxUSxLyFgdsVG+iiaI+w47zY3nLcMY763nRp161HAeSPXifiMv/LQ 4RhmY5xrXmTks+MYMSSCXWccR8JlIOAm7HZEtkY0Rdnm1HFGnSKBUTo/6gL1Ndn2Lvew j+tkjhk6TqQb7VfvrsXQ07bPJ7b/GaYIpuPrd0qkU2Q8H2Sx2BrIIg3Ytu/2w8I+JU/A a//w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.185.133 with SMTP id j127mr7229668iof.91.1450468944635; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:02:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.79.8.198 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:02:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 15:02:24 -0500 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c070a1c33ed530527319e47 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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The increase of max block size should be determined by block height instead of block time 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: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:02:25 -0000 --94eb2c070a1c33ed530527319e47 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From a code standpoint, based off height is easy. My first internal version triggered on block 406,800 (~May 5), and each block increased by 20 bytes thereafter. It was changed to time, because time was the standard used in years past for other changes; MTP flag day is more stable than block height. It is preferred to have a single flag trigger (height or time), rather than the more complex trigger-on-time, increment-on-height, but any combination of those will work. Easy to change code back to height-based... On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I agree that nHeight is the simplest option and is my preference. > Another option is to use the median time from the previous block (thus yo= u > know whether or not the next block should start the miner confirmation or > not). In fact, if we're going to use bip9 for 95% miner upgrade > confirmation, it would be nice to always pick a difficulty retarget block > (ie block.nHeight % DifficultyAdjustmentInterval =3D=3D 0). > Actually I would always have an initial height in bip9, for softforks too= . > I would also use the sign bit as the "hardfork bit" that gets activated > for the next diff interval after 95% is reached and a hardfork becomes > active (that way even SPV nodes will notice when a softfork or hardfork > happens and also be able to tell which one is it). > I should update bip99 with all this. And if the 2 mb bump is > uncontroversial, maybe I can add that to the timewarp fix and th recovery > of the other 2 bits in block.nVersion (given that bip102 doesn't seem to > follow bip99's recommendations and doesn't want to give 6 full months as > the pre activation grace period). > On Dec 18, 2015 8:17 PM, "Chun Wang via bitcoin-dev" < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> In many BIPs we have seen, include the latest BIP202, it is the block >> time that determine the max block size. From from pool's point of >> view, it cannot issue a job with a fixed ntime due to the existence of >> ntime roll. It is hard to issue a job with the max block size unknown. >> For developers, it is also easier to implement if max block size is a >> function of block height instead of time. Block height is also much >> more simple and elegant than time. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > --94eb2c070a1c33ed530527319e47 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From a code standpoint, based off height is easy.

=
My first internal version triggered on block 406,800 (~May 5), a= nd each block increased by 20 bytes thereafter.

It= was changed to time, because time was the standard used in years past for = other changes; MTP flag day is more stable than block height.
It is preferred to have a single flag trigger (height or time),= rather than the more complex trigger-on-time, increment-on-height, but any= combination of those will work.

Easy to change co= de back to height-based...



On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at = 2:52 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoun= dation.org> wrote:

I agree that nHeight is the simplest option and is my preference.<= br> Another option is to use the median time from the previous block (thus you = know whether or not the next block should start the miner confirmation or n= ot). In fact, if we're going to use bip9=C2=A0 for 95% miner upgrade co= nfirmation, it would be nice to always pick a difficulty retarget block (ie= block.nHeight % DifficultyAdjustmentInterval =3D=3D 0).
Actually I would always have an initial height in bip9, for softforks too.<= br> I would also use the sign bit as the "hardfork bit" that gets act= ivated for the next diff interval after 95% is reached and a hardfork becom= es active (that way even SPV nodes will notice when a softfork=C2=A0 or har= dfork happens and also be able to tell which one is it).
I should update bip99 with all this. And if the 2 mb bump is uncontroversia= l, maybe I can add that to the timewarp fix and th recovery of the other 2 = bits in block.nVersion (given that bip102 doesn't seem to follow bip99&= #39;s recommendations and doesn't want to give 6 full months as the pre= activation grace period).

On Dec 18, 2015 8:17 PM, "Chun Wang via bit= coin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
In many BIPs we have se= en, include the latest BIP202, it is the block
time that determine the max block size. From from pool's point of
view, it cannot issue a job with a fixed ntime due to the existence of
ntime roll. It is hard to issue a job with the max block size unknown.
For developers, it is also easier to implement if max block size is a
function of block height instead of time. Block height is also much
more simple and elegant than time.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

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


--94eb2c070a1c33ed530527319e47--