Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46B65132A for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 04:09:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com [209.85.212.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60A47118 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 04:09:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicmc4 with SMTP id mc4so5989464wic.0 for ; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 21:09:25 -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:to :cc:content-type; bh=gaSZtRjKS4IIpzUW6RKRNBqtxyLl9U9PZwUAA4hWvtc=; b=REzUaLWgPjtawxzqVKqA+hU4iKd2vemoFUDA9DFH4SKGSTFWtS4BxNMfwUvjjwNqTZ 0/URVVvYgpk2h/FoXKZrT+ncg487RB7VJoIT3TYg1oRqfTge4tKJqbbe8DInv/4bu176 ddPrgcvzVqMA/nahETN+JAA07XPXah6KPWrGOrtdeTIvXKLMLEb5CxVhYm5lc/oCN0PZ FnmW7b6bmsX6pF07Pbt3PUjddjD1RTCkAS7XK0xa11OPS+5d3U7fJ/Zo1fKl3axM96tI 5QobbtMahqtEd1J8F8jIR8k5nbG57d9L1WxHbYQqjLx4WjfX+pRCVFd4wFbJYU/POtHw HniQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.176.201 with SMTP id ck9mr45961781wjc.108.1441253365085; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 21:09:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.15.11 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 21:09:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201509030017.43036.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201509030017.43036.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 00:09:25 -0400 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d1eb4db7b14051ecff28e 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 development mailing list Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 100 repo 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: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 04:09:27 -0000 --089e013d1eb4db7b14051ecff28e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Oh, and answering your question about the 1M: It is a safety rail. It can perform no worse on the low end than the current system. Eliminates unlikely scenarios that squeeze users. On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > On Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:58:54 PM Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > The repo: https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100 > > What is the purpose of the newly added 1 MB floor? It seems clear from the > current information available that 1 MB is presently too high for the > limit, > and it is entirely one-sided to only allow increases when decreases are > much > more likely to be needed in the short term. > > Must the new size limit votes use 11 bytes of coinbase? Why not just use a > numeric value pushed after height? Since this is a hardfork, I suggest > increasing the coinbase length to allow for 100 bytes *in addition* to the > pushed height and size-vote. > > I suggest combining 2 & 4 into a single rule lifting the 1 MB limit to 32 > MB > (or whatever value is deemed appropriate) to make it clear that the limit > remains a part of the consensus protocol and p2p protocol limits are not to > have an effect on consensus rules. > > Furthermore, I suggest modifying the voting to require 50% to set the limit > floor. This has the effect of merely coordinating what miners can already > effectively do today by rejecting blocks larger than some collusion- > determined limit. > > Thoughts? > > Luke > --089e013d1eb4db7b14051ecff28e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Oh, and answering your question about the 1M: =C2=A0It is = a safety rail.=C2=A0 It can perform no worse on the low end than the curren= t system.=C2=A0 Eliminates unlikely scenarios that squeeze users.

<= /div>

On Wed= , Sep 2, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:=
On Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:58:5= 4 PM Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> The repo: https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100

What is the purpose of the newly added 1 MB floor? It seems clear from the<= br> current information available that 1 MB is presently too high for the limit= ,
and it is entirely one-sided to only allow increases when decreases are muc= h
more likely to be needed in the short term.

Must the new size limit votes use 11 bytes of coinbase? Why not just use a<= br> numeric value pushed after height? Since this is a hardfork, I suggest
increasing the coinbase length to allow for 100 bytes *in addition* to the<= br> pushed height and size-vote.

I suggest combining 2 & 4 into a single rule lifting the 1 MB limit to = 32 MB
(or whatever value is deemed appropriate) to make it clear that the limit remains a part of the consensus protocol and p2p protocol limits are not to=
have an effect on consensus rules.

Furthermore, I suggest modifying the voting to require 50% to set the limit=
floor. This has the effect of merely coordinating what miners can already effectively do today by rejecting blocks larger than some collusion-
determined limit.

Thoughts?

Luke

--089e013d1eb4db7b14051ecff28e--