path: root/9f/fa4e101e942c8bcdbaa955fa6fe167e043dd0f

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 BB13E7AE
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 18 Aug 2015 20:51:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com (mail-pa0-f41.google.com
	[209.85.220.41])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE6612DB
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 18 Aug 2015 20:51:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pacgr6 with SMTP id gr6so140312304pac.2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:51:43 -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=9ncmUxwSnTtGstik5E/S+frVu5/KvzVYpF4FVX2nSCs=;
	b=RNeovwJEIYRGKWWSZgod6e1Vyxe2Bn6rms6+ghOjheEwVCj3pDSgvSlgmaf47f3R3f
	ix1i5zQvTmD29xta1rMPAaMntR9KRM3IiqF88xGRMXLo+IMKPSdcXN3cp8PV/a0VGSFN
	5KdPZakRSdGh8+bVYi9rx9/m4lfXA9mmUj195P6m7cj4ThsfnhF3mE/NMiY9cku1hHgT
	Y3FtKYi+alRV1oAXT98FQNULiXQK5ZEfv1Hv3T2FcYwBejXqxbV0SzjsxlxRM8CcV8I7
	0iRkgKTX6w0dmvsyrgCIyhyYbAIPq/D8xP8bqW4mIzQkXcL+vZMH5RmWabyPJCjrM33X
	+HVQ==
X-Received: by 10.68.227.8 with SMTP id rw8mr17342895pbc.74.1439931103562;
	Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:51:43 -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
	nm8sm19063250pbc.20.2015.08.18.13.51.39
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_B5B32691-E3D1-48F6-91C2-71261541A22C";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJN5wHV-qyOcEw5spQc74nT7_b29WMiDTmi4Jj0ri_rGCQz2ng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:51:38 -0700
Message-Id: <E9543641-9D73-4A00-9CB3-FAB62BFB490E@gmail.com>
References: <d17549688c0c747b2077c1f6f96b6445@xbt.hk>
	<CAJN5wHV-qyOcEw5spQc74nT7_b29WMiDTmi4Jj0ri_rGCQz2ng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Danny Thorpe <danny.thorpe@gmail.com>
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,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-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 20:51:44 -0000


--Apple-Mail=_B5B32691-E3D1-48F6-91C2-71261541A22C
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_9CF1A07F-4192-4AC2-8FEF-124B39ADD252"


--Apple-Mail=_9CF1A07F-4192-4AC2-8FEF-124B39ADD252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

Problem is if you know most of the people running the testnet personally =
(as is pretty much the case with many current testnets) then the =
deployment amounts to =E2=80=9Chey guys, let=E2=80=99s install the new =
version=E2=80=9D

> On Aug 18, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Danny Thorpe via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> Deploying experimental code onto the "live" bitcoin blockchain seems =
unnecessarily risky.  Why not deploy a blocksize limit experiment for =
long term trials using testnet instead?
>=20
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:54 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> 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 =
<http://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 =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev =
<https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--Apple-Mail=_9CF1A07F-4192-4AC2-8FEF-124B39ADD252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D"">Problem is if you know most of the people running the testnet =
personally (as is pretty much the case with many current testnets) then =
the deployment amounts to =E2=80=9Chey guys, let=E2=80=99s install the =
new version=E2=80=9D<div class=3D""><br class=3D""><div><blockquote =
type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D"">On Aug 18, 2015, at 1:48 PM, =
Danny Thorpe via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"">Deploying experimental code onto the "live" bitcoin =
blockchain seems unnecessarily risky.&nbsp; Why not deploy a blocksize =
limit experiment for long term trials using testnet instead?</div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, =
Aug 18, 2015 at 2:54 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> =
wrote:<br class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 =
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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.<br =
class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
Could we just stop the debate for a moment, and agree to a scheduled =
experimental hardfork?<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
Objectives (by order of importance):<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
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<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
2. With a slight increase in block size, to collect data for future =
hardforks<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
3. To slightly relieve the pressure of full block, without minimal =
adverse effects on network performance<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
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.<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
Proposal (parameters in ** are my recommendations but negotiable):<br =
class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
1. Today, we all agree that some kind of block size hardfork will happen =
on t1=3D*1 June 2016*<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
2. If no other consensus could be reached before t2=3D*1 Feb 2016*, we =
will adopt the backup plan<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
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*<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
4. If the backup plan is adopted, we all agree that a better solution =
should be found before t4=3D*31 Dec 2017*.<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
Rationale:<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
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.<br =
class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
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<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
t3 =3D 30 days is chosen to make sure every full nodes have enough time =
to upgrade after the actual hardfork date is confirmed<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
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<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
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.<br =
class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
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 &gt;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.<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
--------------------<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
If the community as a whole could agree with this experimental hardfork, =
we could announce the plan on <a href=3D"http://bitcoin.org/" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank" class=3D"">bitcoin.org</a> 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.<br =
class=3D"">
_______________________________________________<br class=3D"">
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br class=3D"">
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank"=
 class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br class=3D"">
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"=
 rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<=
/a><br class=3D"">
</blockquote></div><br class=3D""></div>
_______________________________________________<br class=3D"">bitcoin-dev =
mailing list<br class=3D""><a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br =
class=3D"">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<=
br class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></div></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_9CF1A07F-4192-4AC2-8FEF-124B39ADD252--

--Apple-Mail=_B5B32691-E3D1-48F6-91C2-71261541A22C
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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=vRj6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_B5B32691-E3D1-48F6-91C2-71261541A22C--