Return-Path: <1240902@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85A2CB01
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:19:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f169.google.com (mail-io0-f169.google.com
	[209.85.223.169])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEDF1129
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:19:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iods203 with SMTP id s203so179292433iod.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:19:28 -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=viruWsbQ/2X9LtfujVp0uu2HC/p5U7TsN+bRwiutBAI=;
	b=kqgoJN7VRnobwjdLRUnlMctTsiYKHezqxHwlX47xNwzKX5PISCa/r/zhhjLlyuA7h5
	k01HlhKJe4BB+HHcrsJJsj5rURHb4aQr5urDJQO4QnwNJlvRGyOVFZbYnB5zmVIGWM17
	Q3ZxoCkKZlKFK1+rAEJGBW0xSwiu8xcMBjqnOfv/+BSNo08BrjnVZizMYECMMbbENaQl
	DYKqL6yEwxtNkCXAUTYXo9zd+BIqB+S8XdUvOD7zdMYCKg9FnvOrYKYp9iQ4yOLc/sWm
	S48jKBTCfHb5NxVwX8LIYdlg3U1Y/H1dHErWZzyiOOYtlWoQ+dECq6LBCvFAWcHglpMo
	X+NA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.19.81 with SMTP id b78mr25356522ioj.36.1440494368174;
	Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.10.159 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAED3CWipF8u5g3LUrqfyHxvEk4Lu+d12ZOJZnoBUw6iZZOg-ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAED3CWipF8u5g3LUrqfyHxvEk4Lu+d12ZOJZnoBUw6iZZOg-ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 17:19:28 +0800
Message-ID: <CAFzgq-x9GBbqARyhMgfSPc=wYeBgzXy4VUQ0D76GC+TCAxWDuA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com>
To: Upal Chakraborty <bitcoin@upalc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,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, greg@xiph.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap
 [BIP 1xx - 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: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:19:29 -0000

Proposal 1 looks good, but tx fee collected can be manipulated by
miners. I like the idea next block collect the tx fee from previous
block.

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Upal Chakraborty via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Github:
> https://github.com/UpalChakraborty/bips/blob/master/BIP-DynamicMaxBlockSize.mediawiki
>
> <pre>
>   BIP: 1xx
>   Title: Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap
>   Author: Upal Chakraborty <bitcoin@upalc.com>
>   Status: Draft
>   Type: Standards Track
>   Created: 2015-08-24
> </pre>
>
> ==Abstract==
>
> This BIP proposes replacing the fixed one megabyte maximum block size with a
> dynamically controlled maximum block size that may increase or decrease with
> difficulty change depending on various network factors. I have two proposals
> regarding this...
>
> i. Depending only on previous block size calculation.
>
> ii. Depending on previous block size calculation and previous Tx fee
> collected by miners.
>
> ==Motivation==
>
> With increased adoption, transaction volume on bitcoin network is bound to
> grow. If the one megabyte max cap is not changed to a flexible one which
> changes itself with changing network demand, then adoption will hamper and
> bitcoin's growth may choke up. Following graph shows the change in average
> block size since inception...
>
> https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
>
> ==Specification==
>
> ===Proposal 1 : Depending only on previous block size calculation===
>
>   If more than 50% of block's size, found in the first 2000 of the last
> difficulty period, is more than 90% MaxBlockSize
>       Double MaxBlockSize
>   Else if more than 90% of block's size, found in the first 2000 of the last
> difficulty period, is less than 50% MaxBlockSize
>       Half MaxBlockSize
>   Else
>       Keep the same MaxBlockSize
>
> ===Proposal 2 : Depending on previous block size calculation and previous Tx
> fee collected by miners===
>
>   TotalBlockSizeInLastButOneDifficulty = Sum of all Block size of first 2008
> blocks in last 2 difficulty period
>   TotalBlockSizeInLastDifficulty = Sum of all Block size of second 2008
> blocks in last 2 difficulty period (This actually includes 8 blocks from
> last but one difficulty)
>
>   TotalTxFeeInLastButOneDifficulty = Sum of all Tx fees of first 2008 blocks
> in last 2 difficulty period
>   TotalTxFeeInLastDifficulty = Sum of all Tx fees of second 2008 blocks in
> last 2 difficulty period (This actually includes 8 blocks from last but one
> difficulty)
>
>   If ( ( (Sum of first 4016 block size in last 2 difficulty period)/4016 >
> 50% MaxBlockSize) AND (TotalTxFeeInLastDifficulty >
> TotalTxFeeInLastButOneDifficulty) AND (TotalBlockSizeInLastDifficulty >
> TotalBlockSizeInLastButOneDifficulty) )
>       MaxBlockSize = TotalBlockSizeInLastDifficulty * MaxBlockSize /
> TotalBlockSizeInLastButOneDifficulty
>   Else If ( ( (Sum of first 4016 block size in last 2 difficulty
> period)/4016 < 50% MaxBlockSize) AND (TotalTxFeeInLastDifficulty <
> TotalTxFeeInLastButOneDifficulty) AND (TotalBlockSizeInLastDifficulty <
> TotalBlockSizeInLastButOneDifficulty) )
>       MaxBlockSize = TotalBlockSizeInLastDifficulty * MaxBlockSize /
> TotalBlockSizeInLastButOneDifficulty
>   Else
>       Keep the same MaxBlockSize
>
> ==Rationale==
>
> These two proposals have been derived after discussion on
> [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154536.0 BitcoinTalk] and
> [http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010285.html
> bitcoin-dev mailing list]. The original idea and its evolution in the light
> of various arguements can be found [http://upalc.com/maxblocksize.php here].
>
> ===Proposal 1 : Depending only on previous block size calculation===
>
> This solution is derived directly from the indication of the problem. If
> transaction volume increases, then we will naturally see bigger blocks. On
> the contrary, if there are not enough transaction volume, but maximum block
> size is high, then only few blocks may sweep the mempool. Hence, if block
> size is itself taken into consideration, then maximum block size can most
> rationally be derived. Moreover, this solution not only increases, but also
> decreases the maximum block size, just like difficulty.
>
> ===Proposal 2 : Depending on previous block size calculation and previous Tx
> fee collected by miners===
>
> This solution takes care of stable mining subsidy. It will not increase
> maximum block size, if Tx fee collection is not increasing and thereby
> creating a Tx fee pressure on the market. On the other hand, though the
> block size max cap is dynamically controlled, it is very difficult to game
> by any party because the increase or decrease of block size max cap will
> take place in the same ratio of average block size increase or decrease.
>
> ==Compatibility==
>
> This is a hard-forking change to the Bitcoin protocol; anybody running code
> that fully validates blocks must upgrade before the activation time or they
> will risk rejecting a chain containing larger-than-one-megabyte blocks.
>
> ==Other solutions considered==
>
> [http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf Making
> Decentralized Economic Policy] - by Jeff Garzik
>
> [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078521.0 Elastic block cap with
> rollover penalties] - by Meni Rosenfeld
>
> [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki Increase
> maximum block size] - by Gavin Andresen
>
> [https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6 Block size following
> technological growth] - by Pieter Wuille
>
> [https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf The Bitcoin Lightning
> Network: Scalable Off-Chain Instant Payments] - by Joseph Poon & Thaddeus
> Dryja
>
> ==Deployment==
>
> If consensus is achieved, deployment can be made at a future block number at
> which difficulty will change.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>