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
|
Return-Path: <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ADD0DF3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 18 Dec 2015 15:48:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f178.google.com (mail-ig0-f178.google.com
[209.85.213.178])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA71C106
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 18 Dec 2015 15:48:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ig0-f178.google.com with SMTP id ph11so39308466igc.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 18 Dec 2015 07:48:44 -0800 (PST)
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=li0+Woy/pGAXE3ugtRrGXyo2MarfQ4MvaEiJ+bqNsnI=;
b=Nu0L1GpelMUBWMuLG5io8IieyucTPprr4SNbg9EcQQBfYjYdeartwax0z9FalnIXx5
zfSzRE1Hp3S+G5PZT1RJcgHUo7UbdMIih9U34Na5050+bslfK9npkYWI2yIJFMyBhnpy
p65U/LZf7W89F2HollsK3ffw5foFU1nF2XHQNRI2Ztol4h7rcqjXI1L5/24I5dEOWgTM
26vder4hdpc+uuVac9mNMLFigDsAXZs9sT65m04bDWjWcUCK7zv0fGnN2x4cSDsX/nMO
4AVWckZncnfalT/dpFamZ0H0dxYB/+E6R1jh1lRy9/+sYtsBh7bQz+aqQAP3bib/C1nr
5I5g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.61.37 with SMTP id m5mr3858442igr.4.1450453724059; Fri,
18 Dec 2015 07:48:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.80.6 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 07:48:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.80.6 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 07:48:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+c4Zozac8=aMrAJ1N_6SR9eBD+w0e70cEnk9CG_2oZ72AS-8g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADm_WcasDuBsop55ZWcTb2FvccaoREg8K032rUjgQUQhQ3g=XA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBi=Mw7UnxG1-0-0ZTRqxrS5+28VmowyYrGP2MAvYiu_pA@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_WcbrMyk-=OnQ-3UvnF_8brhn+X2NqRPbo5xUXsbcZpc0=Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBjbATqf8DXGF7obw9a=371zQ_S0EgTapnUmukAVenTneQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+c4Zozac8=aMrAJ1N_6SR9eBD+w0e70cEnk9CG_2oZ72AS-8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:48:43 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBhsKD8jd9Y9+ngXY5tKUheO3d4P1b47eYL=Uzpat+KJ2w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Andrea Suisani <sickpig@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135f304fc5eb405272e12a7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLY,HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no 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] Block size: It's economics & user preparation &
moral hazard
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, 18 Dec 2015 15:48:45 -0000
--001a1135f304fc5eb405272e12a7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Dec 18, 2015 2:13 AM, "sickpig@gmail.com" <sickpig@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1.75 x 0.5 + 1 x 0.5 = 1.375
>
> after six month.
>
> An hard-fork on the others side would bring 1.75 since the activation, am
I right?
Yes.
However, SW immediately gives a 1.75 capacity increase for anyone who
adopts it, after the softfork, instantly. They don't need to wait for
anyone else.
A hard fork is an orthogonal improvement, which is also needed if we don't
want to be stuck with a constant maximum ultimately.
Hardforks can however only be deployed at a time when all full node
software can reasonably have agreed to upgrade, while a softfork can be
deployed much earlier.
They are independent improvements, and we need both. I am however of the
opinion that hard forks need a much clearer consensus and much longer
rollout timeframes to be safe (see my thread on the security of softforks).
--
Pieter
--001a1135f304fc5eb405272e12a7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Dec 18, 2015 2:13 AM, "<a href=3D"mailto:sickpig@gmail.com">sickpig=
@gmail.com</a>" <<a href=3D"mailto:sickpig@gmail.com">sickpig@gmail=
.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> 1.75 x 0.5 + 1 x 0.5 =3D 1.375<br>
><br>
> after six month.=C2=A0<br>
><br>
> An hard-fork on the others side would bring 1.75 since the activation,=
am I right?</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Yes.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">However, SW immediately gives a 1.75 capacity increase for a=
nyone who adopts it, after the softfork, instantly. They don't need to =
wait for anyone else.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">A hard fork is an orthogonal improvement, which is also need=
ed if we don't want to be stuck with a constant maximum ultimately.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Hardforks can however only be deployed at a time when all fu=
ll node software can reasonably have agreed to upgrade, while a softfork ca=
n be deployed much earlier.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">They are independent improvements, and we need both. I am ho=
wever of the opinion that hard forks need a much clearer consensus and much=
longer rollout timeframes to be safe (see my thread on the security of sof=
tforks).</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">--=C2=A0<br>
Pieter<br>
</p>
--001a1135f304fc5eb405272e12a7--
|
