1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
|
Return-Path: <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED1B7C26
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:00:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wr0-f182.google.com (mail-wr0-f182.google.com
[209.85.128.182])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20912156
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:00:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wr0-f182.google.com with SMTP id w11so20723489wrc.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:in-reply-to; bh=O6tFexhPKGcMgq0lqK45NpICia9t5/GWVEKr4nSXY3I=;
b=XrDviWdFRj011osfmBiZLocRoCTCQtpBVxUzoyDityUYR/Yx2MjCTGg0Cj8v0v3vwF
+rNJTuUTGeLNNhimsyMSiCIIlSgO6tPSS9L7+ZqoVx7BULTZfyK+0CrKROQjnOhzTSJ2
t3toYyN3oKzUDGIDDpPTwRx79aDcyXqcdjw6gUzVGHNiWXVYZnS4o2ppUm/J49wyttQw
wnSA9Newn8leBmVsqpWOCxxcbtb7aozOMO7N9IPRUWSVCrEa/ol7hJoHeGrg96bI11e+
vFUmd86TI9iVOQ5N/IAbPK5vFWXwwNpjythFyMO89GUGk9pHNWdf0xRdAp1myT7bHauL
yjgw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to;
bh=O6tFexhPKGcMgq0lqK45NpICia9t5/GWVEKr4nSXY3I=;
b=OCHmO/zEkaR4QSHuJadxeL2++QtE26GUGWLcFgX1ifx/8U3VI65A4HsdT4OTMQuYsq
r4UiuRxSG8bzlYV7jZJs26x9eY4uUEBlzN3hcNeVoRXjX3X5ZERUMAZy+YbUKLDj7vKY
UarR7DES0Qx6gl3Ien7Jkrjp7tLjqNB+L3yHYqqL0DR0JMw1WQWBhsk1eUMM+VtxF9cY
5qX5dFCNr5lhIP+T7opNvmf/4uDrexNL1fEmmNJCAW/syrD3Ee+k8W+3pNaXLWX1uySF
ZihcZdnoU0Mu6hyplOjkI8ykLNIGBkpQqmkKdZXd6Z3HBeNvaFeOGbCR9srJN63C4BBg
cs+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1PA1o38FhztWR6YJW1vMUX5Uu1aM31K72Tm+KNQn5MoM1zF1gdds92SRZhtx9mAQ==
X-Received: by 10.223.152.237 with SMTP id w100mr1235511wrb.72.1490803223231;
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.10] (ANice-654-1-52-124.w83-201.abo.wanadoo.fr.
[83.201.223.124]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
l132sm954516wmd.10.2017.03.29.09.00.21
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
To: Jared Lee Richardson <jaredr26@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CAFzgq-xizPMNqfvW11nUhd6HmfZu8aGjcR9fshEsf6o5HOt_dA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMBsKS8oSKS5g8UEyCu18bjzGJWpA+sJEaxBUV9FXAmXhX1ApA@mail.gmail.com>
<RO1P152MB16424A3706E408DA163B1D95F5320@RO1P152MB1642.LAMP152.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
<CAMBsKS9n7Mxd2LwXwSXUjHbBQj932QQW7-CnXe10tia6Ga0iBQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD1TkXtv8PO5-5SNZ7uKyotMPNdx4iV44UmCwtSnFs1QTdG7yA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <74162cc6-5388-382a-8d28-402045070452@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 18:00:25 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAD1TkXtv8PO5-5SNZ7uKyotMPNdx4iV44UmCwtSnFs1QTdG7yA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------A722AE56BA9BD87C59496617"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM 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] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:00:28 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------A722AE56BA9BD87C59496617
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Le 29/03/2017 à 11:16, Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev a écrit :
> Nodes process transactions and are paid nothing to do so, and their
> costs are 100x more relevant to the blocksize debate than a paper
> about miner costs.
>
> Miners are rewarded with fees; nodes are rewarded only by utility and
> price increases.
Nodes are rewarded by just nothing which is the main problem of the
bitcoin network (who is therefore not a decentralized system today)
although it seems like everybody is eluding the issue (as well as how to
find solutions to setup quickly full nodes as you quoted in another
answer to this thread, and of course design a decentralized system to
make sure that full nodes behave correctly)
Bitcoin would not be in this situation (ie maybe at the mercy of a very
small minority of freeriders among all the entities involved in the
network, ie miners, just seeking to make more and more money because
they invested in an anti-ecological pow, not understanding that bitcoin
is not just about money) if more nodes were existing and could reject
their blocks
It seems like the initial message of this thread(t) is an ultimatum:
whether you implement what we ask, whether we join BU and then > 50 is
almost reached...
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> Juan,
>
> I suggest you take a look at this
> paper: http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf
> <http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf> It may help you
> form opinions based in science rather than what appears to be
> nothing more than a hunch. It shows that even 4MB is unsafe.
> SegWit provides up to this limit.
>
> 8MB is most definitely not safe today.
>
> Whether it is unsafe or impossible is the topic, since Wang Chun
> proposed making the block size limit 32MiB.
>
>
> Wang Chun,
>
> Can you specify what meeting you are talking about? You seem to
> have not replied on that point. Who were the participants and
> what was the purpose of this meeting?
>
> -Alphonse
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Juan Garavaglia <jg@112bit.com
> <mailto:jg@112bit.com>> wrote:
>
> Alphonse,
>
>
>
> In my opinion if 1MB limit was ok in 2010, 8MB limit is ok on
> 2016 and 32MB limit valid in next halving, from network,
> storage and CPU perspective or 1MB was too high in 2010 what
> is possible or 1MB is to low today.
>
>
>
> If is unsafe or impossible to raise the blocksize is a
> different topic.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Juan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> [mailto:bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:24 PM
> *To:* Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com
> <mailto:1240902@gmail.com>>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last
> week's meeting
>
>
>
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> <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
--
Zcash wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets
Bitcoin wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets
Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist
Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
--------------A722AE56BA9BD87C59496617
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 29/03/2017 à 11:16, Jared Lee
Richardson via bitcoin-dev a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD1TkXtv8PO5-5SNZ7uKyotMPNdx4iV44UmCwtSnFs1QTdG7yA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Nodes process transactions and are paid nothing to
do so, and their costs are 100x more relevant to the blocksize
debate than a paper about miner costs.<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
Miners are rewarded with fees; nodes are rewarded only by
utility and price increases.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Nodes are rewarded by just nothing which is the main problem of the
bitcoin network (who is therefore not a decentralized system today)
although it seems like everybody is eluding the issue (as well as
how to find solutions to setup quickly full nodes as you quoted in
another answer to this thread, and of course design a decentralized
system to make sure that full nodes behave correctly)<br>
<br>
Bitcoin would not be in this situation (ie maybe at the mercy of a
very small minority of freeriders among all the entities involved in
the network, ie miners, just seeking to make more and more money
because they invested in an anti-ecological pow, not understanding
that bitcoin is not just about money) if more nodes were existing
and could reject their blocks<br>
<br>
It seems like the initial message of this thread(t) is an ultimatum:
whether you implement what we ask, whether we join BU and then >
50 is almost reached...<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD1TkXtv8PO5-5SNZ7uKyotMPNdx4iV44UmCwtSnFs1QTdG7yA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:53 AM,
Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Juan,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I suggest you take a look at this paper: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf"
target="_blank">http://fc16.ifca.ai/<wbr>bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf</a>
It may help you form opinions based in science rather
than what appears to be nothing more than a hunch. It
shows that even 4MB is unsafe. SegWit provides up to
this limit.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>8MB is most definitely not safe today.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Whether it is unsafe or impossible is the topic,
since Wang Chun proposed making the block size limit
32MiB. <br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Wang Chun,</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
Can you specify what meeting you are talking about?
You seem to have not replied on that point. Who were
the participants and what was the purpose of this
meeting?</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">-Alphonse</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail-h5">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at
12:33 PM, Juan Garavaglia <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jg@112bit.com" target="_blank">jg@112bit.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div
class="gmail-m_4313037861597504663m_-8711817936055089631WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif">Alphonse,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif">In
my opinion if 1MB limit was ok in
2010, 8MB limit is ok on 2016 and 32MB
limit valid in next halving, from
network, storage and CPU perspective
or 1MB was too high in 2010 what is
possible or 1MB is to low today.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif">If
is unsafe or impossible to raise the
blocksize is a different topic.</span> </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div
class="gmail-m_4313037861597504663m_-8711817936055089631WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif">Regards</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif">Juan</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank">bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linu<wbr>xfoundation.org</a>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank">bitcoin-dev-bounces@li<wbr>sts.linuxfoundation.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Alphonse Pace via
bitcoin-dev<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 28, 2017
2:24 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Wang Chun <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:1240902@gmail.com"
target="_blank">1240902@gmail.com</a>>;
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard
fork proposal from last week's meeting</span></p>
<div>
<div
class="gmail-m_4313037861597504663h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">What meeting
are you referring to? Who were
the participants?</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-Alphonse</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Mar
28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Wang Chun
via bitcoin-dev <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>>
wrote:</p>
<blockquote
style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt
solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in
0in
6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">I've
proposed this hard fork
approach last year in Hong
Kong Consensus<br>
but immediately rejected by
coredevs at that meeting,
after more than<br>
one year it seems that lots of
people haven't heard of it. So
I would<br>
post this here again for
comment.<br>
<br>
The basic idea is, as many of
us agree, hard fork is risky
and should<br>
be well prepared. We need a
long time to deploy it.<br>
<br>
Despite spam tx on the
network, the block capacity is
approaching its<br>
limit, and we must think
ahead. Shall we code a patch
right now, to<br>
remove the block size limit of
1MB, but not activate it until
far in<br>
the future. I would propose to
remove the 1MB limit at the
next block<br>
halving in spring 2020, only
limit the block size to 32MiB
which is<br>
the maximum size the current
p2p protocol allows. This
patch must be<br>
in the immediate next release
of Bitcoin Core.<br>
<br>
With this patch in core's next
release, Bitcoin works just as
before,<br>
no fork will ever occur, until
spring 2020. But everyone
knows there<br>
will be a fork scheduled.
Third party services,
libraries, wallets and<br>
exchanges will have enough
time to prepare for it over
the next three<br>
years.<br>
<br>
We don't yet have an agreement
on how to increase the block
size<br>
limit. There have been many
proposals over the past years,
like<br>
BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104,
105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248,
BU, and so<br>
on. These hard fork proposals,
with this patch already in
Core's<br>
release, they all become soft
fork. We'll have enough time
to discuss<br>
all these proposals and decide
which one to go. Take an
example, if we<br>
choose to fork to only 2MB,
since 32MiB already scheduled,
reduce it<br>
from 32MiB to 2MB will be a
soft fork.<br>
<br>
Anyway, we must code something
right now, before it becomes
too late.<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Zcash wallets made simple: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets">https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets</a>
Bitcoin wallets made simple: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets">https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets</a>
Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://peersm.com/getblocklist">http://peersm.com/getblocklist</a>
Check the 10 M passwords list: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://peersm.com/findmyass">http://peersm.com/findmyass</a>
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://torrent-live.org">http://torrent-live.org</a>
Peersm : <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.peersm.com">http://www.peersm.com</a>
torrent-live: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live">https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live</a>
node-Tor : <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor">https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor</a>
GitHub : <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.github.com/Ayms">https://www.github.com/Ayms</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------A722AE56BA9BD87C59496617--
|
