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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36548F08
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:44:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-la0-f42.google.com (mail-la0-f42.google.com
[209.85.215.42])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 635CE11E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:44:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by laboe4 with SMTP id oe4so15522293lab.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:44:22 -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:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=eTxlqbav9BgVro3Z4IXKAxcLARe5JNP81N0MGibFMTg=;
b=RhSbHBXrUibkAAl0C8u8okoktp7xfMyQikk+wlnbkUcXDphikFD7XnzrblqKzSjCEI
sRSpzYY9Wrzr/veJv/L+iad+dlSi1mS/iZYzpJnowY9wPL9/vPOwsTyDE/SnqAgph/sl
SRAoLVonuZvVNkiuWyaNLxMTwi+bAR9LU5mKw0U9jSJocA7JRg3Xu+kEsFd4iVfDrI9p
Kn4Zq/cpC922+PmDesWFstueESrUhL85ULurVlA8Cuk/z1/y1UXKuQhZBUzZtxkukmBM
Yf3+Eu+dkKxyC1bYXpebAr6cmkKS178V1moexUFb/nCH/lSMliLUW2dW19jU11EPPsIr
UD/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmLhoe51i3rVvrrsiDAjEF4j++cYeGYQvfX6sqIACUeJofgRlSl2aIxummFq5r4Kfw0hWOP
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.146.106 with SMTP id tb10mr6138410lbb.22.1440805462597;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzsn_BAynjwFB93DLP9-xSkH4N+5D_O7CH1ajW1PUy-m0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADJgMzvWKA79NHE2uFy1wb-zL3sjC5huspQcaDczxTqD_7gXOg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADr=VrQR6rYK4sJJsDpUdFJaWZqhv=AkMqcG64EhsOCg1tDxVg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMzvkBDBD9_=53kaD_6_jWH=vbWOnNwOKK5GOz8Du-F08dQ@mail.gmail.com>
<2081355.cHxjDEpgpW@crushinator>
<CADJgMzsn_BAynjwFB93DLP9-xSkH4N+5D_O7CH1ajW1PUy-m0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 01:44:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrL5L6HYf-6L_dxHtOYwQV1ZFHt9r=iXWvE+osRkOk4nA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus based block size retargeting algorithm
(draft)
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: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:44:25 -0000
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 1:36 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> w=
rote:
>> However, this proposal currently fails to answer a very important questi=
on:
>>
>> =E2=80=A2 What is the mechanism for activation of the new consensus rule=
? It is when a certain percentage of the blocks mined in a 2016-block retar=
geting period contain valid block-size votes?
>
> I chose not to address hard fork methodology at this stage because I
> wanted to focus on the main algorithm. There are a number of options
> open to us for deployment including a simple fixed activation (which I
> think is feasible because there is a a lot of awareness and the
> industry shows they are willing to rally around a single proposal). If
> there are any strong preferences, I can add a deployment section
> although I think it's less interesting until we forge a clear way
> forward with what blocksize proposal to use.
Can we please not discuss an ideal deployment mechanism in 4+
different proposals and discuss the same deployment mechanism (for all
proposals) in BIP99's thread instead?
|
