Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YqTs2-0005J5-9n for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 22:02:18 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me designates 192.241.179.72 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.241.179.72; envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me; helo=mail.bluematt.me; Received: from mail.bluematt.me ([192.241.179.72]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YqTs1-0007SV-A0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 22:02:18 +0000 Received: from [172.17.0.2] (gw.vpn.bluematt.me [162.243.132.6]) by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A67754409 for ; Thu, 7 May 2015 22:02:11 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me> Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 22:02:09 +0000 From: Matt Corallo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YqTs1-0007SV-A0 Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 22:02:18 -0000 OK, so lets do that. I've seen a lot of "I'm not entirely comfortable with committing to this right now, but think we should eventually", but not much "I'd be comfortable with committing to this when I see X". In the interest of ignoring debate and pushing people towards a consensus at all costs, ( ;) ) I'm gonna go ahead and suggest we talk about the second. Personally, there are several things that worry me significantly about committing to a blocksize increase, which I'd like to see resolved before I'd consider supporting a blocksize increase commitment. * Though there are many proposals floating around which could significantly decrease block propagation latency, none of them are implemented today. I'd expect to see these not only implemented but being used in production (though I dont particularly care about them being all that stable). I'd want to see measurements of how they perform both in production and in the face of high packet loss (eg across the GFW or in the case of small/moderate DoS). In addition, I'd expect to see analysis of how these systems perform in the worst-case, not just packet-loss-wise, but in the face of miners attempting to break the system. * I'd very much like to see someone working on better scaling technology, both in terms of development and in terms of getting traction in the marketplace. I know StrawPay is working on development, though its not obvious to me how far they are from their website, but I dont know of any commitments by large players (either SPV wallets, centralized wallet services, payment processors, or any others) to support such a system (to be fair, its probably too early for such players to commit to anything, since anything doesnt exist in public). * I'd like to see some better conclusions to the discussion around long-term incentives within the system. If we're just building Bitcoin to work in five years, great, but if we want it all to keep working as subsidy drops significantly, I'd like a better answer than "we'll deal with it when we get there" or "it will happen, all the predictions based on people's behavior today say so" (which are hopefully invalid thanks to the previous point). Ideally, I'd love to see some real free pressure already on the network starting to develop when we commit to hardforking in a year. Not just full blocks with some fees because wallets are including far greater fees than they really need to, but software which properly handles fees across the ecosystem, smart fee increases when transactions arent confirming (eg replace-by-fee, which could be limited to increase-in-fees-only for those worried about double-spends). I probably forgot one or two and certainly dont want to back myself into a corner on committing to something here, but those are a few things I see today as big blockers on larger blocks. Luckily, people have been making progress on building the software needed in all of the above for a while now, but I think they're all very, very immature today. On 05/07/15 19:13, Jeff Garzik wrote:> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Matt Corallo > wrote: -snip- >> If, instead, there had been an intro on the list as "I think we should >> do the blocksize increase soon, what do people think?", the response >> could likely have focused much more around creating a specific list of >> things we should do before we (the technical community) think we are >> prepared for a blocksize increase. > > Agreed, but that is water under the bridge at this point. You - rightly > - opened the topic here and now we're discussing it. > > Mike and Gavin are due the benefit of doubt because making a change to a > leaderless automaton powered by leaderless open source software is > breaking new ground. I don't focus so much on how we got to this point, > but rather, where we go from here.