summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/6b/50458c806a7501a67f8f7362098ec428877571
blob: 3347213c5d781f55f990610202670f49fdf3f24a (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
Return-Path: <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F19D305
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:53:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pd0-f178.google.com (mail-pd0-f178.google.com
	[209.85.192.178])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 281E5109
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:53:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pdob1 with SMTP id b1so15617999pdo.2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
	:message-id:references:to;
	bh=0bMHhPENUoacmK9xnCEIUe3INl3+sTNoaSdl/3pCTzs=;
	b=Npj4QU59+l+/Oo7WyqqSo1ZEML2fHvVJzeFRwIbX1AaoPYH4riF0JwlYGUJQ9keNVH
	zn2cYwXRz7xaJ1XC2absvX0yL/q0//8FvEk1OmLh8cgmHpXBqA+ifKfyekWrH4BgHqfv
	n2L+sP4YiuEEDWRn6kBzG5K3OprAkGuXIWxAowG7E9ti3Mm72USiJ3q0ot2V0hPM/r9o
	L+3a/UwkFH7o+/blsANzznZXV9hpq6ztv4Bx/m/RJfzWsKYPaty9WqB7icGxkD5RT3gV
	oCxceGIl04KHwBnC2sqPpjBngxfgVEhlmhGhQeoR1PN1g5LcBSkzuvuuxKv/drnAHhv0
	dS/A==
X-Received: by 10.70.135.7 with SMTP id po7mr15902662pdb.68.1439923981690;
	Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.107] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com.
	[76.167.237.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
	t15sm18893456pbs.10.2015.08.18.11.52.50
	(version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_DDB3A3C5-F0B1-4886-92D4-683DDEA4BF73";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d17549688c0c747b2077c1f6f96b6445@xbt.hk>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:52:50 -0700
Message-Id: <FAC68321-BB05-47D8-B47D-7FEA505B5069@gmail.com>
References: <d17549688c0c747b2077c1f6f96b6445@xbt.hk>
To: jl2012@xbt.hk
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
	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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an
	experimental hardfork?
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: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:53:02 -0000


--Apple-Mail=_DDB3A3C5-F0B1-4886-92D4-683DDEA4BF73
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

I=E2=80=99m 100% in favor of attempting a hard fork using a far less =
controversial, far less risky consensus rule change. We should stop =
wasting our energy arguing over stuff we don=E2=80=99t really know and =
understand and can=E2=80=99t predict very well - and we should =
especially avoid using a highly contentious change as our first hard =
fork deployment.

I=E2=80=99m also in favor of trying a small block increase before =
attempting any major jumps. I don=E2=80=99t think we should be focusing =
so much on long-term block size adjustment rules right now - much more =
critical is to develop a hard fork mechanism and to make sure we can =
deploy it. So something along these lines is probably a step in the =
right direction.


> On Aug 18, 2015, at 2:54 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> As I understand, there is already a consensus among core dev that =
block size should/could be raised. The remaining questions are how, =
when, how much, and how fast. These are the questions for the coming =
Bitcoin Scalability Workshops but immediate consensus in these issues =
are not guaranteed.
>=20
> Could we just stop the debate for a moment, and agree to a scheduled =
experimental hardfork?
>=20
> Objectives (by order of importance):
>=20
> 1. The most important objective is to show the world that reaching =
consensus for a Bitcoin hardfork is possible. If we could have a =
successful one, we would have more in the future
>=20
> 2. With a slight increase in block size, to collect data for future =
hardforks
>=20
> 3. To slightly relieve the pressure of full block, without minimal =
adverse effects on network performance
>=20
> With the objectives 1 and 2 in mind, this is to NOT intended to be a =
kick-the-can-down-the-road solution. The third objective is more like a =
side effect of this experiment.
>=20
>=20
> Proposal (parameters in ** are my recommendations but negotiable):
>=20
> 1. Today, we all agree that some kind of block size hardfork will =
happen on t1=3D*1 June 2016*
>=20
> 2. If no other consensus could be reached before t2=3D*1 Feb 2016*, we =
will adopt the backup plan
>=20
> 3. The backup plan is: t3=3D*30 days* after m=3D*80%* of miner =
approval, but not before t1=3D*1 June 2016*, the block size is increased =
to s=3D*1.5MB*
>=20
> 4. If the backup plan is adopted, we all agree that a better solution =
should be found before t4=3D*31 Dec 2017*.
>=20
> Rationale:
>=20
> t1 =3D 1 June 2016 is chosen to make sure everyone have enough time to =
prepare for a hardfork. Although we do not know what actually will =
happen but we know something must happen around that moment.
>=20
> t2 =3D 1 Feb 2016 is chosen to allow 5 more months of negotiations =
(and 2 months after the workshops). If it is successful, we don't need =
to activate the backup plan
>=20
> t3 =3D 30 days is chosen to make sure every full nodes have enough =
time to upgrade after the actual hardfork date is confirmed
>=20
> t4 =3D 31 Dec 2017 is chosen, with 1.5 year of data and further =
debate, hopefully we would find a better solution. It is important to =
acknowledge that the backup plan is not a final solution
>=20
> m =3D 80%: We don't want a very small portion of miners to have the =
power to veto a hardfork, while it is important to make sure the new =
fork is secured by enough mining power. 80% is just a compromise.
>=20
> s =3D 1.5MB. As the 1MB cap was set 5 years ago, there is no doubt =
that all types of technology has since improved by >50%. I don't mind =
making it a bit smaller but in that case not much valuable data could be =
gathered and the second objective of this experiment may not be =
archived.
>=20
> --------------------
>=20
> If the community as a whole could agree with this experimental =
hardfork, we could announce the plan on bitcoin.org and start coding of =
the patch immediately. At the same time, exploration for a better =
solution continues. If no further consensus could be reached, a new =
version of Bitcoin Core with the patch will be released on or before 1 =
Feb 2016 and everyone will be asked to upgrade immediately.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--Apple-Mail=_DDB3A3C5-F0B1-4886-92D4-683DDEA4BF73
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=EUJM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_DDB3A3C5-F0B1-4886-92D4-683DDEA4BF73--