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
|
Return-Path: <rjmarti2@millersville.edu>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92503905
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 10 Jan 2017 04:27:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:12:56 by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outgoing.millersville.edu (outgoing.millersville.edu
[166.66.86.75])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E07E9142
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 10 Jan 2017 04:27:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1484021696-0793ff17814fbd0001-D3WCip
Received: from HUBCAS2.muad.local (outlook.muad.local [166.66.87.94]) by
outgoing.millersville.edu with ESMTP id UjVzAy4G7tdbc7zW for
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 09 Jan 2017 23:14:56 -0500 (EST)
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: rjmarti2@millersville.edu
X-Barracuda-Effective-Source-IP: outlook.muad.local[166.66.87.94]
X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: 166.66.87.94
Received: from STUDMAIL1.muad.local ([2002:a642:56b8::a642:56b8]) by
HUBCAS2.muad.local ([2002:a642:575e::a642:575e]) with mapi id
14.03.0301.000; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 23:14:55 -0500
From: Ryan J Martin <rjmarti2@millersville.edu>
To: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Thread-Topic: BIP - Block75 - Historical and future projections (t. khan)
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: re: BIP - Block75 - Historical and future projections (t.
khan)
Thread-Index: AQHSau1Mc14p5vsaYEm3Tnr0rjlsgQ==
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 04:14:55 +0000
Message-ID: <127281C1AA02374F8AAD9EE04FAE878A02154E4E46@STUDMail1.muad.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [71.207.55.31]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Barracuda-Connect: outlook.muad.local[166.66.87.94]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1484021696
X-Barracuda-URL: https://166.66.86.75:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 4122
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at millersville.edu
X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0
QUARANTINE_LEVEL=4.5 KILL_LEVEL=1000.0 tests=INFO_TLD,
MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.35668
Rule breakdown below
pts rule name description
---- ----------------------
--------------------------------------------------
0.00 INFO_TLD URI: Contains an URL in the INFO top-level domain
0.00 MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR Includes a link to a likely spammer email
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 06:45:12 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Block75 - Historical and future projections
(t. khan)
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: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 04:27:56 -0000
The adaptive/automatic block size notion has been around for a while--=
- others would be better able to speak to why it hasn't gotten traction. Ho=
wever my concern with something like that is that it doesn't regard the opt=
imal economic equilibrium for tx fees/size---not that the current limit doe=
s either but the concern with an auto-adjusting size limit that ignores thi=
s would be the potential to create unforeseen externalities for miners/use=
rs. Miners may decide it is more profitable to mine very small blocks to co=
nstrict supply and increase marginal fees and with how centralized mining i=
s, where a dozen pools have 85% hashrate, a couple of pools could do this. =
Then on the other side, maybe the prisoner's dilemma would hold and all min=
ers would have minrelaytxfee set at zero and users would push the blocks to=
larger and larger sizes causing higher and higher latency and network issu=
es. =0A=
Perhaps something like this could work (I can only speak to the economi=
c side anyway) but it would have to have some solid code that has a social =
benefit model built in to adjust to an equilibrium that is able to optimize=
---as in maximizes benefit/minimize cost for both sides via a Marshallian s=
urplus model--- for each size point. =0A=
To be clear, I'm not saying an auto-adjusting limit is unworkable (aga=
in only from an economic standpoint), just that it would need to have these=
considerations built in. =0A=
=0A=
-Ryan J. Martin=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
________________________________________=0A=
=0A=
------------------------------=0A=
=0A=
Message: 2=0A=
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 14:52:31 -0500=0A=
From: "t. khan" <teekhan42@gmail.com>=0A=
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion=0A=
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>=0A=
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Block75 - Historical and future=0A=
projections=0A=
Message-ID:=0A=
<CAGCNRJpSV9zKxhVvqpMVPyFyXco_ABB9a7_ihaDKEKFPQ9v3sw@mail.gmail.com=
>=0A=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"=0A=
=0A=
Using daily average block size over the past year (source:=0A=
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?daysAverageString=3D14×p=
an=3D1year=0A=
), here's how Block75 would have altered max block sizes:=0A=
=0A=
[image: Inline image 1]=0A=
=0A=
As of today, the max block size would be 1,135KB.=0A=
=0A=
Looking forward and using the last year's growth rate as a model:=0A=
=0A=
[image: Inline image 2]=0A=
=0A=
This shows the max block size one year from now would be 2,064KB, if=0A=
Block75 activated today.=0A=
=0A=
Of course, this is just an estimate, but even accounting for a substantial=
=0A=
increase in transactions in the last quarter of 2017 and changes brought=0A=
about by SegWit (hopefully) activating, Block75 alters the max size in such=
=0A=
a way that allows for growth, keeps blocks as small as possible, *and*=0A=
maintains transaction fees at a level similar to May/June 2016.=0A=
=0A=
If anyone has an alternate way to model future behavior, please run it=0A=
through the Block75 algorithm.=0A=
=0A=
Every 2016 blocks, do this:=0A=
=0A=
new max blocksize =3D x + (x * (AVERAGE_CAPACITY - TARGET_CAPACITY))=0A=
=0A=
TARGET_CAPACITY =3D 0.75 //Block75's target of keeping blocks 75% full=
=0A=
AVERAGE_CAPACITY =3D average percentage full of the last 2016 blocks, as a=
=0A=
decimal=0A=
x =3D current max block size=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
Thanks,=0A=
=0A=
- t.k.=0A=
-------------- next part --------------=0A=
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...=0A=
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20=
170109/b0e0b713/attachment.html>=0A=
-------------- next part --------------=0A=
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...=0A=
Name: Block75 2016.png=0A=
Type: image/png=0A=
Size: 32088 bytes=0A=
Desc: not available=0A=
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20=
170109/b0e0b713/attachment.png>=0A=
-------------- next part --------------=0A=
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...=0A=
Name: Block75 2017.png=0A=
Type: image/png=0A=
Size: 33176 bytes=0A=
Desc: not available=0A=
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20=
170109/b0e0b713/attachment-0001.png>=0A=
=0A=
------------------------------=0A=
=0A=
_______________________________________________=0A=
bitcoin-dev mailing list=0A=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=0A=
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 20, Issue 21=0A=
*******************************************=0A=
|
