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
|
Return-Path: <adam@cypherspace.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7779A323
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:08:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE1E2149
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:08:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-qk0-f178.google.com ([209.85.220.178]) by
mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
0MLhDB-1Z8wlY414d-000poE for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:08:00 +0200
Received: by qkhu186 with SMTP id u186so38999319qkh.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 25 Jun 2015 07:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.40.214 with SMTP id o83mr99887064qko.106.1435241279245;
Thu, 25 Jun 2015 07:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.28.39 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 07:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0CAB4453-0C88-4CCB-86C1-DA192D4F77A1@gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T2HegqOBqd1jijk1bZBE6N+NH8x6nfwbaoLBACVf8-WBQ@mail.gmail.com>
<558A0B4A.7090205@riseup.net> <558A1E8E.30306@novauri.com>
<CADm_WcZ52_fvNk_rWzu+Nw1CBz2o6t6cMkEfOm3BpdjH7iQKrw@mail.gmail.com>
<0CAB4453-0C88-4CCB-86C1-DA192D4F77A1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:07:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CALqxMTHQCWSg5Px5iLzNisZchuyzWJ2KwtwbWycywDSjF+4GBA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Gareth Williams <gacrux@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:nXmtMRAqY/3bjoXjBR7dit+5RIUQBZClcbnOs8r9Y2C3qgwMojA
wbo1XZo+wgun9AcQRZCnMHsiFcUJ2y3lf/knzeR+S+9Dp+uVQSxl7vMbQAQ9+iph5wEyX/w
OyRXifM5ky2KlsUagB++ZzShIDgNM9lQLQgokhzCCqp3Yjm02rbPvPGjCDOFyWtFQAvEruV
BuyyfYgxC8/eyMEyzJXpw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:MXUcdJ/4Ek8=:+L0H1A1loTtTaGGOZmXxSx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X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:08:01 -0000
Note Jeff's proposal and Greg Maxwell's flexcap proposals also have a
growth limiter as a hard-cap and a mechanism for influencing a dynamic
cap within that envelope.
The hard-cap serves the purpose of a safety limit in case our
understanding about the economics, incentives or game-theory is wrong
worst case.
More comments to follow.
Adam
On 25 June 2015 at 15:50, Gareth Williams <gacrux@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 June 2015 1:49:51 PM AEST, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Miners can collude today to lower the block size limit.
>
> Of course they can. What, then, is the need for BIP100's hard-limit votin=
g mechanism?
>
> You only need consensus rules to enforce block size limits if you're enfo=
rcing them _against_ miners. Which may be a perfectly valid thing to do (if=
your threat model includes, for example, the possibility that large miners=
deliberately create large blocks to gain an advantage over small miners.) =
But BIP100 doesn't address that anyway.
>
> Wouldn't it be safer for consensus to get behind Gavin's simpler 8MB->8GB=
hard-limit growth curve*, and then encourage miners to enforce a soft limi=
t below that, agreed through a voting mechanism? The later can be implement=
ed at any time without consensus changes -- nobody can prevent miners from =
coordinating the max block size they'll build on anyway.
>
> * but with a safer "supermajority" than 75% please :)
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
