summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/66/7bccf9dd5b7ec99539a1807433ee98a140de16
blob: eb538f99c45de66aed14a8557d9a08b59b4d9415 (plain)
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
Return-Path: <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68805119B
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu,  3 Sep 2015 14:34:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com
	[209.85.212.177])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF86410B
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu,  3 Sep 2015 14:34:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so22151120wic.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 03 Sep 2015 07:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type;
	bh=wEc2dgx51YFCkI8lyqVXHHQonWQkv3Y82rDo/INu758=;
	b=IPBMBYGLzJCHSDx3BTWWc1SVjKczJDfvKbqlo9kYL+VXcToI769m7esQE5YLZAm7gO
	9DDK9GUiAmId8gk4PBXSYSOcpjANR0WykiZACwgGxVLEHpWq9MLplftjUz1tPYiiWsJu
	z/6p4NwpVRUnZONb39oUM2KWstn+NnOGrJV6SQyBa++tINdMiFfTyo0myJHSQjjcSKHP
	mciU+leLGkoI1khRECk++z7WTffRPhJiQiC1vqxtEwil33h4LvGUo8hgTNlZYBvbhtha
	rPJIXCUe0rhhj2+I7YnZrwTmFPi3UrpyMp0Irv786FX8B6Wg+kteLGbXVcy0CtI4QQgc
	VSJg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.238.39 with SMTP id vh7mr50047597wjc.109.1441290842753; 
	Thu, 03 Sep 2015 07:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.15.11 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 07:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzuWNNvMf6f9N0h0swAUATyAm4Y9Qu+ya33cEA1WB++sRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADm_WcZyK6LUcuKqSEuR-q0hTZOC3EdJsqY1HrS_ow0knDY=7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<e54e93e519d776262f9c0f4ae23f54fb@xbt.hk>
	<CADJgMzuWNNvMf6f9N0h0swAUATyAm4Y9Qu+ya33cEA1WB++sRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 10:34:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CADm_WcbVRQMFHU0pS7hi99=Ey3Pu3t6pViaPG-KpHF40w69N6A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0141aa1ab3516f051ed8ac78
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 development mailing list <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 100 specification
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, 03 Sep 2015 14:34:05 -0000

--089e0141aa1ab3516f051ed8ac78
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A discussion of rolling out BIP 100 will not be avoided :)

It is a hard fork; it would be silly to elide discussion of these key
issues.

I don't get the community's recent interest in avoiding certain topics.



On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com> wrote:

> We should avoid discussing actual hard fork/softfork deployment
> methodologies when discussing blocksize proposals because deployment
> is a separate issue. As a recent case in point, look at how BIP65
> (CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY) specifically avoided the issue of how to deploy.
> That lead to a focused discussion of the functionality and relatively
> quick inclusion.
>
> Deployment really is a separate issue than the mechanics of how BIP100
> will function after activation.
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:57 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Some comments:
> >
> > The 75% rule is meaningless here. Since this is a pure relaxation of
> rules,
> > there is no such thing as "invalid version 4 blocks"
> >
> > The implication threshold is unclear. Is it 95% or 80%?
> >
> > Softfork requires a very high threshold (95%) to "attack" the original
> fork.
> > This makes sure that unupgraded client will only see the new fork.
> > In the case of hardfork, however, the new fork is unable to attack the
> > original fork, and unupgraded client will never see the new fork. The
> > initiation of a hardfork should be based on its acceptance by the
> economic
> > majority, not miner support. 95% is an overkill and may probably never
> > accomplished. I strongly prefer a 80% threshold rather than 95%.
> >
> > As I've pointed out, using 20-percentile rather than median creates an
> > incentive to 51% attack the uncooperative minority.
> >
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/01069=
0.html
> >
> > Having said that, I don't have a strong feeling about the use of
> > 20-percentile as threshold to increase the block size. That means the
> block
> > size is increased only when most miners agree, which sounds ok to me.
> >
> > However, using 20-percentile as threshold to DECREASE the block size
> could
> > be very dangerous. Consider that the block size has been stable at 8MB
> for a
> > few years. Everyone are happy with that. An attacker would just need to
> > acquire 21% of mining power to break the status quo and send us all the
> way
> > to 1MB. The only way to stop such attempt is to 51% attack the attacker=
.
> > That'd be really ugly.
> >
> > For technical and ethical reasons, I believe the thresholds for increas=
e
> and
> > decrease must be symmetrical: increase the block size when the
> x-percentile
> > is bigger than the current size, decrease the block size when the
> > (100-x)-percentile is smaller than the current size. The overall effect
> is:
> > the block size remains unchanged unless 80% of miners agree to.
> >
> > Please consider the use of "hardfork bit" to signify the hardfork:
> >
> >
> https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist/comments/3ekhg2/bip_draft_hardfo=
rk_bit_jl2012_at_xbthk_jul_23_2015/
> >
> > https://github.com/jl2012/bips/blob/master/hardforkbit.mediawiki
> >
> > Or, alternatively, please combine the hardfork with a softfork. I'm
> > rewriting the specification as follow (changes underlined):
> >
> > Replace static 1M block size hard limit with a floating limit
> ("hardLimit").
> >
> > hardLimit floats within the range 1-32M, inclusive.
> >
> > Initial value of hardLimit is 1M, preserving current system.
> >
> > Changing hardLimit is accomplished by encoding a proposed value within =
a
> > block's coinbase scriptSig.
> >
> > Votes refer to a byte value, encoded within the pattern "/BV\d+/"
> Example:
> > /BV8000000/ votes for 8,000,000 byte hardLimit. If there is more than o=
ne
> > match with with pattern, the first match is counted.
> > Absent/invalid votes and votes below minimum cap (1M) are counted as 1M
> > votes. Votes above the maximum cap (32M) are counted as 32M votes.
> > A new hardLimit is calculated at each difficult adjustment period (2016
> > blocks), and applies to the next 2016 blocks.
> > Calculate hardLimit by examining the coinbase scriptSig votes of the
> > previous 12,000 blocks, and taking the 20th percentile and 80th
> percentile.
> > New hardLimit is the median of the followings:
> >
> > min(current hardLimit * 1.2, 20-percentile)
> > max(current hardLimit / 1.2, 80-percentile)
> > current hardLimit
> >
> > version 4 block: the coinbase of a version 4 block must match this
> pattern:
> > "/BV\d+/"
> > 70% rule: If 8,400 of the last 12,000 blocks are version 4 or greater,
> > reject invalid version 4 blocks. (testnet4: 501 of last 1000)
> > 80% rule ("Point of no return"): If 9,600 of the last 12,000 blocks are
> > version 4 or greater, reject all version <=3D 3 blocks. (testnet4: 750 =
of
> last
> > 1000)
> > Block version number is calculated after masking out high 16 bits (fina=
l
> bit
> > count TBD by versionBits outcome).
> >
> > Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev =E6=96=BC 2015-09-02 23:33 =E5=AF=AB=E5=88=
=B0:
> >> BIP 100 initial public draft:
> >> https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100/blob/master/bip-0100.mediawiki [1]
> >>
> >> Emphasis on "initial"  This is a starting point for the usual open
> >> source feedback/iteration cycle, not an endpoint that Must Be This
> >> Way.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Links:
> >> ------
> >> [1] https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100/blob/master/bip-0100.mediawiki
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >> 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
> >
>

--089e0141aa1ab3516f051ed8ac78
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">A discussion of rolling out BIP 100 will not be avoided :)=
<div><br></div><div>It is a hard fork; it would be silly to elide discussio=
n of these key issues.</div><div><br></div><div>I don&#39;t get the communi=
ty&#39;s recent interest in avoiding certain topics.</div><div><br></div><d=
iv><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote=
">On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Btc Drak <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:btcdrak@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">btcdrak@gmail.com</a>&gt;</spa=
n> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;b=
order-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">We should avoid discussing actu=
al hard fork/softfork deployment<br>
methodologies when discussing blocksize proposals because deployment<br>
is a separate issue. As a recent case in point, look at how BIP65<br>
(CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY) specifically avoided the issue of how to deploy.<br>
That lead to a focused discussion of the functionality and relatively<br>
quick inclusion.<br>
<br>
Deployment really is a separate issue than the mechanics of how BIP100<br>
will function after activation.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:57 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev<br>
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; Some comments:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; The 75% rule is meaningless here. Since this is a pure relaxation of r=
ules,<br>
&gt; there is no such thing as &quot;invalid version 4 blocks&quot;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; The implication threshold is unclear. Is it 95% or 80%?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Softfork requires a very high threshold (95%) to &quot;attack&quot; th=
e original fork.<br>
&gt; This makes sure that unupgraded client will only see the new fork.<br>
&gt; In the case of hardfork, however, the new fork is unable to attack the=
<br>
&gt; original fork, and unupgraded client will never see the new fork. The<=
br>
&gt; initiation of a hardfork should be based on its acceptance by the econ=
omic<br>
&gt; majority, not miner support. 95% is an overkill and may probably never=
<br>
&gt; accomplished. I strongly prefer a 80% threshold rather than 95%.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; As I&#39;ve pointed out, using 20-percentile rather than median create=
s an<br>
&gt; incentive to 51% attack the uncooperative minority.<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/201=
5-August/010690.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.li=
nuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010690.html</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Having said that, I don&#39;t have a strong feeling about the use of<b=
r>
&gt; 20-percentile as threshold to increase the block size. That means the =
block<br>
&gt; size is increased only when most miners agree, which sounds ok to me.<=
br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; However, using 20-percentile as threshold to DECREASE the block size c=
ould<br>
&gt; be very dangerous. Consider that the block size has been stable at 8MB=
 for a<br>
&gt; few years. Everyone are happy with that. An attacker would just need t=
o<br>
&gt; acquire 21% of mining power to break the status quo and send us all th=
e way<br>
&gt; to 1MB. The only way to stop such attempt is to 51% attack the attacke=
r.<br>
&gt; That&#39;d be really ugly.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; For technical and ethical reasons, I believe the thresholds for increa=
se and<br>
&gt; decrease must be symmetrical: increase the block size when the x-perce=
ntile<br>
&gt; is bigger than the current size, decrease the block size when the<br>
&gt; (100-x)-percentile is smaller than the current size. The overall effec=
t is:<br>
&gt; the block size remains unchanged unless 80% of miners agree to.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Please consider the use of &quot;hardfork bit&quot; to signify the har=
dfork:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist/comments/3ekhg2/bi=
p_draft_hardfork_bit_jl2012_at_xbthk_jul_23_2015/" rel=3D"noreferrer" targe=
t=3D"_blank">https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist/comments/3ekhg2/bip_d=
raft_hardfork_bit_jl2012_at_xbthk_jul_23_2015/</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://github.com/jl2012/bips/blob/master/hardforkbit.medi=
awiki" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/jl2012/bips/=
blob/master/hardforkbit.mediawiki</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Or, alternatively, please combine the hardfork with a softfork. I&#39;=
m<br>
&gt; rewriting the specification as follow (changes underlined):<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Replace static 1M block size hard limit with a floating limit (&quot;h=
ardLimit&quot;).<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; hardLimit floats within the range 1-32M, inclusive.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Initial value of hardLimit is 1M, preserving current system.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Changing hardLimit is accomplished by encoding a proposed value within=
 a<br>
&gt; block&#39;s coinbase scriptSig.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Votes refer to a byte value, encoded within the pattern &quot;/BV\d+/&=
quot; Example:<br>
&gt; /BV8000000/ votes for 8,000,000 byte hardLimit. If there is more than =
one<br>
&gt; match with with pattern, the first match is counted.<br>
&gt; Absent/invalid votes and votes below minimum cap (1M) are counted as 1=
M<br>
&gt; votes. Votes above the maximum cap (32M) are counted as 32M votes.<br>
&gt; A new hardLimit is calculated at each difficult adjustment period (201=
6<br>
&gt; blocks), and applies to the next 2016 blocks.<br>
&gt; Calculate hardLimit by examining the coinbase scriptSig votes of the<b=
r>
&gt; previous 12,000 blocks, and taking the 20th percentile and 80th percen=
tile.<br>
&gt; New hardLimit is the median of the followings:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; min(current hardLimit * 1.2, 20-percentile)<br>
&gt; max(current hardLimit / 1.2, 80-percentile)<br>
&gt; current hardLimit<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; version 4 block: the coinbase of a version 4 block must match this pat=
tern:<br>
&gt; &quot;/BV\d+/&quot;<br>
&gt; 70% rule: If 8,400 of the last 12,000 blocks are version 4 or greater,=
<br>
&gt; reject invalid version 4 blocks. (testnet4: 501 of last 1000)<br>
&gt; 80% rule (&quot;Point of no return&quot;): If 9,600 of the last 12,000=
 blocks are<br>
&gt; version 4 or greater, reject all version &lt;=3D 3 blocks. (testnet4: =
750 of last<br>
&gt; 1000)<br>
&gt; Block version number is calculated after masking out high 16 bits (fin=
al bit<br>
&gt; count TBD by versionBits outcome).<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev =E6=96=BC 2015-09-02 23:33 =E5=AF=AB=E5=88=
=B0:<br>
&gt;&gt; BIP 100 initial public draft:<br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100/blob/master/bip-0100.=
mediawiki" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/jgarzik/=
bip100/blob/master/bip-0100.mediawiki</a> [1]<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Emphasis on &quot;initial&quot;=C2=A0 This is a starting point for=
 the usual open<br>
&gt;&gt; source feedback/iteration cycle, not an endpoint that Must Be This=
<br>
&gt;&gt; Way.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Links:<br>
&gt;&gt; ------<br>
&gt;&gt; [1] <a href=3D"https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100/blob/master/bip-0=
100.mediawiki" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/jgar=
zik/bip100/blob/master/bip-0100.mediawiki</a><br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc=
oin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation=
.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
&gt;<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--089e0141aa1ab3516f051ed8ac78--