Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25879323 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:47:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f170.google.com (mail-qk0-f170.google.com [209.85.220.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78AEFF2 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:47:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qkhu186 with SMTP id u186so55249740qkh.0 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 06:47:24 -0700 (PDT) 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:cc :content-type; bh=8sjR4DbgUpGuAweoKLS32llK/4ovDkBZ6K8fnhLv6TY=; b=iYwDjubYQbZAw9DfeFv7vYKySrVjROqa+iwG+Xi2SsjXNfFtI4aJcp8uvsNrqhCrAY fEKT3QAKAZniFSZW3tSEjLaoCnZz6ZXuapWmq0WEjhMtTq9qgr/U7e93bIXJsfCYJhWl vI23d8yppm/B68WDq+4xGTyEEAaVvq6qMJ2Bs+XJo6tksD4UWPn/MtVWuLRYVyYrclid sqtAIrWzKgauP9Q5VaRBI4rlZPS90mmzyQW/N2u0pI92oJhHZos8RsDLuT+0l2kpzcN1 9wUrft5basn1byKBqsFcuksBgUgSqkdMrcvQ4gYxsB/NIRaWQQ+RPKVRpMvyjTea4o/0 8smw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.237.147 with SMTP id i141mr2399647qhc.25.1435326444653; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 06:47:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.85.241 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 06:47:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <558A0B4A.7090205@riseup.net> <558A1E8E.30306@novauri.com> <0CAB4453-0C88-4CCB-86C1-DA192D4F77A1@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:47:24 +0100 Message-ID: From: Tier Nolan Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135ad28ded44d05196bfa25 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MISSING_HEADERS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase 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, 26 Jun 2015 13:47:26 -0000 --001a1135ad28ded44d05196bfa25 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Adam Back wrote: > The hard-cap serves the purpose of a safety limit in case our > understanding about the economics, incentives or game-theory is wrong > worst case. > True. BIP 100 and 101 could be combined. Would that increase consensus? - Miner vote threshold reached - Wait notice period or until earliest start time - Block size default target set to 1 MB - Soft limit set to 1MB - Hard limit set to 8MB + double every 2 years - Miner vote to decide soft limit (lowest size ignoring bottom 20% but 1MB minimum) Block size updates could be aligned with the difficulty setting and based on the last 2016 blocks. Miners could leave the 1MB limit in place initially. The vote is to get the option to increase the block size. Legacy clients would remain in the network until >80% of miners vote to raise the limit and a miner produces a >1MB block. If the growth rate over-estimates hardware improvements, the devs could add a limit into the core client. If they give notice and enough users update, then miners would have to accept it. The block size becomes min(miner's vote, core devs). Even if 4 years notice is given, blocks would only be 4X optimal. --001a1135ad28ded44d05196bfa25 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Adam Back <adam@cyphe= rspace.org> wrote:
The hard-cap serves the purpose of a safety limit in case our
understanding about the economics, incentives or game-theory is wrong
worst case.

True.

BIP 100 and 10= 1 could be combined.=C2=A0 Would that increase consensus?

- Miner vote threshold reached
- Wait notice period or until= earliest start time
- Block size default target set to 1 MB<= br>
- Soft limit set to 1MB
- Hard limit set to 8MB= + double every 2 years
- Miner vote to decide soft limit (lo= west size ignoring bottom 20% but 1MB minimum)

Block size= updates could be aligned with the difficulty setting and based on the last= 2016 blocks.

Miners could leave the 1MB limit in place initia= lly.=C2=A0 The vote is to get the option to increase the block size.

Legacy clients would remain in the n= etwork until >80% of miners vote to raise the limit and a miner produces= a >1MB block.

If the growth rate over-estimates hardw= are improvements, the devs could add a limit into the core client.=C2=A0 If= they give notice and enough users update, then miners would have to accept= it.

The block size becomes min(miner's vote, core de= vs).=C2=A0 Even if 4 years notice is given, blocks would only be 4X optimal= .
--001a1135ad28ded44d05196bfa25--