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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <admin@ajaltech.com>) id 1YyOqd-0001d3-Oh
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 29 May 2015 18:17:35 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YyOqc-0003cR-9t
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 29 May 2015 18:17:35 +0000
Received: by wicmx19 with SMTP id mx19so25436490wic.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 29 May 2015 11:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=4fyQ1RsbhGx9Fp1gP0mJ6OcbfbBQ0/E+clr6o2724bQ=;
b=ihwyoMFZCAmG8PY3JHjdAkg8YF+EMhM8pzcEpS3ouhpUT80FhCOgg+A5HkKlj4uJXy
oWZ1+9VYJS25pndKbgzakAMObfgiQUEcwMGgPjeudf4RXGeThOIxN0kfJkyg0YneeiV2
1YsDeZLWnN5kfVlxurIe5JVuaLeMk+WmnyFrWsVr2ecNsONJ09utOhFl2xf4rVmG81yf
mTZxSBPPUQgx6yRVDgGo8alnc+L0zjDGhbLQu5kx8uUCg51VHixhptuZWmqGI1eFc7Pd
B53lEnhyP3l9HMDwmFJq4O3PDIQP7qSTRX3sXCHu1FtW2Pyovyfwia1HzQZvwwLHavKk
DYow==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkCI7fsVya9/3Osg+gvTfEHWGVw4/4cSr4J+BWRDwDMLq94czNGuy+nlZyJT8uIqVE37XNe
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.7.169 with SMTP id k9mr8849263wia.84.1432922036114; Fri,
29 May 2015 10:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: admin@ajaltech.com
Received: by 10.194.40.137 with HTTP; Fri, 29 May 2015 10:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [100.32.141.26]
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T23r_y2R9OEgqb3AAZf47Hh8BUJncjxxmPp5v_9uKEiqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator>
<CABsx9T3-zxCAagAS0megd06xvG5n-3tUL9NUK9TT3vt7XNL9Tg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3VCaFsW4+gPm2kCJ9z7oVUZYVaeNf=_cJWEWwh4ZxiPQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T21zjHyO-nh1aSBM3z4Bg015O0rOfYq7=Sy4mf=QxUVQA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2BaKwhpPgcUHWAHswOmUeFLgEk4ysrn4+73qNzWDJ=yQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T3nCJ-w_v-yEbEE2Ytb+xC65mhYqhoAhoOHw9tkPpG0TA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP1qH+zucYsGrMgnfi99e61Edxaj+xm=u_xYXga1g0WzJQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE-z3OVmw+0doCe0hmYE6A1D61h0AUh4Mtnf5Fg1e4zQBkpraQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0psA7hcJdKdA-r01UEt7ig3O-9vjwBMqKSEq-csu0hPQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T23r_y2R9OEgqb3AAZf47Hh8BUJncjxxmPp5v_9uKEiqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 10:53:55 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: nAlxi26P7oZtUMum_jQZYoGiBBs
Message-ID: <CA+VAk3O7SmDkxL9rATWe9oqCVVKcT=cFXDJnARPN8pv=UiHaiA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Admin Istrator <andy@ftlio.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d041825aef425eb05173c28ef
X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.4 NO_DNS_FOR_FROM DNS: Envelope sender has no MX or A DNS records
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-Headers-End: 1YyOqc-0003cR-9t
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step
function
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 18:17:35 -0000
--f46d041825aef425eb05173c28ef
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
What about trying the dynamic scaling method within the 20MB range + 1 year
with a 40% increase of that cap? Until a way to dynamically scale is
found, the cap will only continue to be an issue. With 20 MB + 40% yoy,
we're either imposing an arbitrary cap later, or achieving less than great
DOS protection always. Why not set that policy as a maximum for 2 years as
a protection against the possibility of dynamic scaling abuse, and see what
happens with a dynamic method in the mean time. The policy of Max(1MB,
(average size over previous 144 blocks) * 2) calculated at each block seems
pretty reasonable.
As an outsider, the real 'median' here seems to be 'keeping the cap as
small as possible while allowing for larger blocks still'. We know
miners will want to keep space in their blocks relatively scarce, but we
also know that doesn't exclude the more powerful miners from
including superfluous transactions to increase their effective share of the
network. I have the luck of not being drained by this topic over the past
three years, so it looks to me as if its two poles of 'block size must
increase' and 'block size must not increase' are forcing what is the clear
route to establishing the 'right' block size off the table.
--Andrew Len
(sorry if anybody received this twice, sent as the wrong email the first
time around).
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> What do other people think?
>
>
> If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help
> reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement a
> big increase now that grows over time so we may never have to go through
> all this rancor and debate again.
>
> I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges and
> hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure companies
> (and anybody who agrees with me that we need bigger blocks sooner rather
> than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core, and state that they
> are running it. We'll be able to see uptake on the network by monitoring
> client versions.
>
> Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consensus bigger blocks are
> needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The early deployment will
> just serve as early testing, and all of the software already deployed will
> ready for bigger blocks.
>
> But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger blocks
> now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to do the
> same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (hopefully)
> get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger blocks.
> The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they'd better
> start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them
> a chance to upgrade before that happens.
>
>
> Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
> determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges
> and miners are running.
>
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
--f46d041825aef425eb05173c28ef
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px">What about tr=
ying the dynamic scaling method within the 20MB range + 1 year with a 40% i=
ncrease of that cap?=C2=A0 Until a way to dynamically scale is found, the c=
ap will only continue to be an issue.=C2=A0 With 20 MB + 40% yoy, we're=
either imposing an arbitrary cap later, or achieving less than great DOS p=
rotection always.=C2=A0 Why not set that policy as a maximum for 2 years as=
a protection against the possibility of dynamic scaling abuse, and see wha=
t happens with a dynamic method in the mean time.=C2=A0 The policy of Max(1=
MB, (average size over previous 144 blocks) * 2) calculated at each block s=
eems pretty reasonable. =C2=A0</span><br style=3D"font-size:12.800000190734=
9px"><br style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px"><span style=3D"font-size:12=
.8000001907349px">As an outsider, the real 'median' here seems to b=
e 'keeping the cap as small as possible while allowing for larger block=
s still'. =C2=A0 =C2=A0We know miners will want to keep space in their =
blocks relatively scarce, but we also know that doesn't exclude the mor=
e powerful miners from including=C2=A0superfluous=C2=A0transactions to incr=
ease their effective share of the network.=C2=A0 I have the luck of not bei=
ng drained by this topic over the past three years,=C2=A0so it looks to me =
as if its two poles of 'block size must increase' and 'block si=
ze must not increase' are forcing what is the clear route to establishi=
ng the 'right' block size off the table.=C2=A0<br></span><br>--Andr=
ew Len <br>(sorry if anybody received this twice, sent as the wrong email t=
he first time around).<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmai=
l_quote">On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Gavin Andresen <span dir=3D"ltr">=
<<a href=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gavinandre=
sen@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div =
dir=3D"ltr">What do other people think?<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I=
f we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help review=
ing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement a bi=
g increase now that grows over time so we may never have to go through all =
this rancor and debate again.</div><div><br></div><div>I'll then ask fo=
r help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges and hosted wallet compa=
nies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure companies (and anybody who agr=
ees with me that we need bigger blocks sooner rather than later) to run Bit=
coin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core, and state that they are running it. We'=
;ll be able to see uptake on the network by monitoring client versions.</di=
v><div><br></div><div>Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consen=
sus bigger blocks are needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The ea=
rly deployment will just serve as early testing, and all of the software al=
ready deployed will ready for bigger blocks.</div><div><br></div><div>But i=
f there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger blocks =
now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners =
to do the same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (ho=
pefully) get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger=
blocks. The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they&=
#39;d better start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, =
and to give them a chance to upgrade before that happens.</div><div><br></d=
iv><div><br></div><div>Because if we can't come to consensus here, the =
ultimate authority for determining consensus is what code the majority of m=
erchants and exchanges and miners are running.</div><span class=3D"HOEnZb">=
<font color=3D"#888888"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div><br></div><div><br>=
</div>-- <br><div>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div>
</div></font></span></div>
<br>-----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------<br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
--f46d041825aef425eb05173c28ef--
|
