MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAUaCyjbObcb1mJVmeEDmgzNddQCY3QhrHV3fgNbin-ZyqgfeA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201705232023.40588.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAJowKgJK9zBkVAM1NyOsjU04gvwV3zGnk+1ebfpt6rnbiKy6Og@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDpet31gEcBY6NTxEG+xA4rvg8_c79L+J=mJySGbf7Ydbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOG=w-uei5-c-Mpp_R6RrN29NTrSV+gpNd79FC3cB6QPG65sEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH+Axy5yYQywpy0s9pBZt_fNoLPpWfra-cU9HrUwH71GDOchsQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<004E1123-8346-48B6-9BCB-94BAE00EC34B@me.com>
	<CAAUaCyjbObcb1mJVmeEDmgzNddQCY3QhrHV3fgNbin-ZyqgfeA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jared Lee Richardson <jaredr26@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 12:40:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD1TkXtut2LZdp5Qo9ep2FfMGFFYqdxtobLJgoC7UutyNujKKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jacob Eliosoff <jacob.eliosoff@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hypothetical 2 MB hardfork to follow BIP148
Precedence: list

> Maybe there's some hole in Jorge's logic and scrapping blockmaxsize has q=
uadratic hashing risks, and maybe James' 10KB is too ambitious; but even if=
 so, a simple 1MB tx size limit would clearly do the trick.  The broader po=
int is that quadratic hashing is not a compelling reason to keep blockmaxsi=
ze post-HF: does someone have a better one?

I think this is exactly the right direction to head.  There are
arguments to be made for various maximum sizes... Maybe the limit
could be set to 1mb initially, and at a distant future block
height(years?) automatically drop to 500kb or 100kb?  That would give
anyone with existing systems or pre-signed transactions several years
to adjust to the change.  Notification could (?possibly?) be done with
a non-default parameter that must be changed to continue to use 100kb
- <1mb transactions, so no one running modern software could claim
they were not informed when that future date hits.

I don't see any real advantages to continuing to support transactions
larger than 100kb excepting the need to update legacy use cases /
already signed transactions.

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Maybe there's some hole in Jorge's logic and scrapping blockmaxsize has
> quadratic hashing risks, and maybe James' 10KB is too ambitious; but even=
 if
> so, a simple 1MB tx size limit would clearly do the trick.  The broader
> point is that quadratic hashing is not a compelling reason to keep
> blockmaxsize post-HF: does someone have a better one?
>
>
>
> On May 30, 2017 9:46 PM, "Jean-Paul Kogelman via bitcoin-dev"
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> That would invalidate any pre-signed transactions that are currently out
>> there. You can't just change the rules out from under people.
>>
>>
>> On May 30, 2017, at 4:50 PM, James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>  The 1MB classic block size prevents quadratic hashing
>>> problems from being any worse than they are today.
>>>
>>
>> Add a transaction-size limit of, say, 10kb and the quadratic hashing
>> problem is a non-issue. Donezo.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>