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
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
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an
	experimental hardfork?
Precedence: list


--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--