MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFzgq-xnXw6efaEurLcgMQQwwr7YitrJ3vZ8i+Ha0MbnVzUKhg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFzgq-xizPMNqfvW11nUhd6HmfZu8aGjcR9fshEsf6o5HOt_dA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMBsKS8oSKS5g8UEyCu18bjzGJWpA+sJEaxBUV9FXAmXhX1ApA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFzgq-xnXw6efaEurLcgMQQwwr7YitrJ3vZ8i+Ha0MbnVzUKhg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:33:31 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5xwhgU9orUAsY00PbGPH7-SuoGYF3bCigBwm1BOoDtPn26cQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c19ecb404f9c8054bcddd0a
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
Precedence: list

--94eb2c19ecb404f9c8054bcddd0a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I think it's probably safer to have a fork-to-minumum (e.g. minimal
coinbase+header) after a certain date than to fork up at a certain date. At
least in that case, the default isn't breaking consensus, but you still get
the same pressure to fork to a permanent solution.

I don't endorse the above proposal, but remarked for the sake of guiding
the argument you are making.


--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> The basic idea is, let's stop the debate for whether we should upgrade
> to 2MB, 8MB or 32MiB. 32MiB is well above any proposals' upper limit,
> so any final decision would be a soft fork to this already deployed
> release. If by 2020, we still agree 1MB is enough, it can be changed
> back to 1MB limit and it would also a soft fork on top of that.
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Alphonse Pace <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > What meeting are you referring to?  Who were the participants?
> >
> > Removing the limit but relying on the p2p protocol is not really a true
> > 32MiB 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 miners.
> >
> > 32MB in less than 3 years also appears to be far beyond limits of safety
> > which are known to exist far sooner, and we cannot expect hardware and
> > networking layers to improve by those amounts in that time.
> >
> > It also seems like it would be much better to wait until SegWit
> activates in
> > order to truly measure the effects on the network from this increased
> > capacity 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.org> 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.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
>

--94eb2c19ecb404f9c8054bcddd0a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,he=
lvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">I think it&#39;s proba=
bly safer to have a fork-to-minumum (e.g. minimal=20
coinbase+header) after a certain date than to fork up at a certain date.
 At least in that case, the default isn&#39;t breaking consensus, but you=
=20
still get the same pressure to fork to a permanent solution.<br><br>I don&#=
39;t endorse the above proposal, but remarked for the sake of guiding the a=
rgument you are making.<br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br clear=
=3D"all"><div><br clear=3D"all"><div><div class=3D"gmail_signature" data-sm=
artmail=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr">--<br><a href=3D"https://twitt=
er.com/JeremyRubin" target=3D"_blank">@JeremyRubin</a><a href=3D"https://tw=
itter.com/JeremyRubin" target=3D"_blank"></a></div></div></div>
</div>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Wang Chun v=
ia bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.li=
nuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<=
/a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">The basic idea is, =
let&#39;s stop the debate for whether we should upgrade<br>
to 2MB, 8MB or 32MiB. 32MiB is well above any proposals&#39; upper limit,<b=
r>
so any final decision would be a soft fork to this already deployed<br>
release. If by 2020, we still agree 1MB is enough, it can be changed<br>
back to 1MB limit and it would also a soft fork on top of that.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Alphonse Pace &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:alp.bi=
tcoin@gmail.com">alp.bitcoin@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; What meeting are you referring to?=C2=A0 Who were the participants?<br=
>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Removing the limit but relying on the p2p protocol is not really a tru=
e<br>
&gt; 32MiB limit, but a limit of whatever transport methods provide.=C2=A0 =
This can<br>
&gt; lead to differing consensus if alternative layers for relaying are use=
d.<br>
&gt; What you seem to be asking for is an unbound block size (or at least<b=
r>
&gt; determined by whatever miners produce).=C2=A0 This has the possibility=
 (and even<br>
&gt; likelihood) of removing many participants from the network, including =
many<br>
&gt; small miners.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; 32MB in less than 3 years also appears to be far beyond limits of safe=
ty<br>
&gt; which are known to exist far sooner, and we cannot expect hardware and=
<br>
&gt; networking layers to improve by those amounts in that time.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; It also seems like it would be much better to wait until SegWit activa=
tes in<br>
&gt; order to truly measure the effects on the network from this increased<=
br>
&gt; capacity before committing to any additional increases.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; -Alphonse<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev<br>
&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; I&#39;ve proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong C=
onsensus<br>
&gt;&gt; but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more t=
han<br>
&gt;&gt; one year it seems that lots of people haven&#39;t heard of it. So =
I would<br>
&gt;&gt; post this here again for comment.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and sho=
uld<br>
&gt;&gt; be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching =
its<br>
&gt;&gt; limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, t=
o<br>
&gt;&gt; remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far =
in<br>
&gt;&gt; the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next bl=
ock<br>
&gt;&gt; halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which i=
s<br>
&gt;&gt; the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must =
be<br>
&gt;&gt; in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; With this patch in core&#39;s next release, Bitcoin works just as =
before,<br>
&gt;&gt; no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows the=
re<br>
&gt;&gt; will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets=
 and<br>
&gt;&gt; exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next th=
ree<br>
&gt;&gt; years.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; We don&#39;t yet have an agreement on how to increase the block si=
ze<br>
&gt;&gt; limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like<br=
>
&gt;&gt; BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and =
so<br>
&gt;&gt; on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core&#39=
;s<br>
&gt;&gt; release, they all become soft fork. We&#39;ll have enough time to =
discuss<br>
&gt;&gt; all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, i=
f we<br>
&gt;&gt; choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce =
it<br>
&gt;&gt; from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too la=
te.<br>
&gt;&gt; ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
&gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc=
oin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation=
.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--94eb2c19ecb404f9c8054bcddd0a--