Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE611B38 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 06:13:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f42.google.com (mail-vk0-f42.google.com [209.85.213.42]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19184148 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 06:13:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f42.google.com with SMTP id x75so169616720vke.2 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 22:13:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=W46JZKifx/nB6GgWct+upRd0S2VgG26cKbgSp+ldtZ4=; b=R2YBQppUBz2RyEeGy4Lb8Y9oo61U/jCHnKTNkt1eidkmeQ41JBVjJf+eKoG1CcLNTO ZarjnOjy4vSNW8oCHZVAGg8SD/Jokd8bLcoURcwM4yniquw9sT1P/CJgFtnTBQoqrf1t ve3yGHu9rfCXvitOzLjN1E0ZJ00a3QgKnWMcCEZLoZtVll3UGJSXmWaGnobtK+z+wFpZ orgUBhASDUemYUq1KNzZYzLjoW6JOXISQFOS/t1CYQmGiPyV5lod+uE/NE20h18K6Q4H jH+Gsk9N32CImyoTP6AOS8ExBDRJYrCyeI8aU1llRuaks7kpGw/ZASwzvlMFgATuH3Aa 5cSQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=W46JZKifx/nB6GgWct+upRd0S2VgG26cKbgSp+ldtZ4=; b=gZtCcDwAQ7xflLaAOmqsQY39lwhatPk0fWXuxSZXiHnbnI4YEVY34uW0YR/I493SSK 7O3PMir6tvv0qQPv5sot/VYF8ePg5SNTWSDvy150qtu55uhVWQPpBdCGnETXa1Gq07Jm aAugeqQMcOAM1Ur3O5z8PMjsGYF/fSdW37aFRaczVOPlxohAhnfaSznxSKeVIPOOW+Py sYGD8sO8M/O9qeK0pCtJ4Kx+sQqRafhvJ8poPVsueGom4ci5TGHQjQ7rUi3WcotmIYp7 G2ZVi8zUaXCgsrd2AQOzZdootaKMPcGewxOQdxeIKJlH3N0ZCXw/glb6qva7jkNisFZP XDWw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKu1qX8i51cRUB50kUuo8fFxEn15Y2WM6qqBgbTRxDR1/bvXGJopxML7VAUaKNuNhNcUb7Z/CiEHIXRLg== X-Received: by 10.31.0.67 with SMTP id 64mr3373291vka.167.1485497615237; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 22:13:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.152.19 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 22:13:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.103.152.19 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 22:13:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201701270107.01092.luke@dashjr.org> <201701270414.18553.luke@dashjr.org> From: Andrew Johnson Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 00:13:34 -0600 Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113daaa4abc81b05470d5d9f X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:03:25 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three hardfork-related BIPs X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 06:13:37 -0000 --001a113daaa4abc81b05470d5d9f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Jan 26, 2017 10:15 PM, "Luke Dashjr" wrote: On Friday, January 27, 2017 3:04:50 AM Andrew Johnson wrote: > Comment on #1. You're dropping the blocksize limit to 300KB and only > reaching the limit that we have in place today 7 years later? The limit only drops all the way to 300k if it activates before 2017 April. Considering that this requires the consensus of a hardfork, followed by a release in software, and then actual activation by miners using BIP9, I think it's extremely unlikely to activate by then. But more importantly: such a drop would probably be good for the network in the long-term. As explained in the Rationale section, 300k is necessary to maintain our *current* IBD (first-time node sync) costs even with technological improvements (which appear to be slowing lately). Other researchers have come to the conservative conclusion that we could handle 4MB blocks today. Imagine bitcoin had been invented in 1987 and had a block size correspondent to the internet connections and hard drive sizes of the day. Your proposal would have probably brought us from 1Kb(then reduced to 300 bytes) and up to a whopping 20Kb or so today. Yet even you think we can handle 15x that today. You drastically underestimate the speed of technological progression, and seem to fancy yourself the central planner of bitcoin. Isn't that one of the things we're trying to get away from, centrally planned economics? > We're already at capacity today, surely you're not serious with this > proposal? We are only at capacity because the space is available below actual costs, and/or because efficient alternatives are not yet widely supported. A reduction of block size will likely squeeze out spam, and perhaps some unsustainable microtransaction use, but the volume which actually *benefits from* the blockchain's security should continue along fine. Furthermore, once Lightning is widely implemented as well-tested, at least microtransactions are likely to gain a huge improvement in efficiency, reducing legitimate usage of block sizes well below 300k naturally - that is frankly when I first expect this proposal to be seriously considered for activation (which is independent from the consensus to include support for it in nodes). Legitimate usage is a transaction that pays the appropriate fee to be included. The term legitimate transaction should be stricken from one's vocabulary when describing a censorship resistant system such as bitcoin. > When you promised code for a hard forking block size increase in the HK > agreement I don't believe that a decrease first was made apparent. While > not technically in violation of the letter of the agreement, I think this > is a pretty obviously not in the spirit of it. I did not mention the HK "roundtable", because this is indeed not in the spirit of what we set out to do, and do not wish this to be interpreted as some kind of slap in the face of the honest participants of that discussion. Too late for that, I suspect. This proposal is, however, the best I am currently able to honestly recommend that meets the hard criteria outlined at Hong Kong a year ago. (Continued work on the MMHF/SHF concept may eventually deliver a better solution, but it is not yet ready.) Luke --001a113daaa4abc81b05470d5d9f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Jan 26, 2017 10:15 PM, "Luke Dashjr" <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Friday, January = 27, 2017 3:04:50 AM Andrew Johnson wrote:
> Comment on #1.=C2=A0 You're dropping the blocksize limit to 300KB = and only
> reaching the limit that we have in place today 7 years later?

The limit only drops all the way to 300k if it activates before 2017 = April.
Considering that this requires the consensus of a hardfork, followed by a release in software, and then actual activation by miners using BIP9, I thi= nk
it's extremely unlikely to activate by then.

But more importantly: such a drop would probably be good for the network in=
the long-term. As explained in the Rationale section, 300k is necessary to<= br> maintain our *current* IBD (first-time node sync) costs even with
technological improvements (which appear to be slowing lately).

Other = researchers have come to the conservative conclusion that we could handle 4= MB blocks today.=C2=A0 Imagine bitcoin had been invented in 1987 and had a = block size correspondent to the internet connections and hard drive sizes o= f the day.=C2=A0 Your proposal would have probably brought us from 1Kb(then= reduced to 300 bytes) and up to a whopping 20Kb or so today.=C2=A0 Yet eve= n you think we can handle 15x that today.

=
You drastically underestimate the speed of technological = progression, and seem to fancy yourself the central planner of bitcoin.=C2= =A0 Isn't that one of the things we're trying to get away from, cen= trally planned economics?

> We're already at capacity today, surely you're not serious wit= h this
> proposal?

We are only at capacity because the space is available below actual c= osts,
and/or because efficient alternatives are not yet widely supported. A
reduction of block size will likely squeeze out spam, and perhaps some
unsustainable microtransaction use, but the volume which actually *benefits=
from* the blockchain's security should continue along fine. Furthermore= , once
Lightning is widely implemented as well-tested, at least microtransactions = are
likely to gain a huge improvement in efficiency, reducing legitimate usage = of
block sizes well below 300k naturally - that is frankly when I first expect=
this proposal to be seriously considered for activation (which is independe= nt
from the consensus to include support for it in nodes).

Legitimate usa= ge is a transaction that pays the appropriate fee to be included.=C2=A0 The= term legitimate transaction should be stricken from one's vocabulary w= hen describing a censorship resistant system such as bitcoin.

> When you promised code for a hard forking block size increase in the H= K
> agreement I don't believe that a decrease first was made apparent.= =C2=A0 While
> not technically in violation of the letter of the agreement, I think t= his
> is a pretty obviously not in the spirit of it.

I did not mention the HK "roundtable", because this is inde= ed not in the
spirit of what we set out to do, and do not wish this to be interpreted as<= br> some kind of slap in the face of the honest participants of that discussion= .

Too late for that, I suspect.

This proposal is, however, the best I am currently able to honestly recomme= nd
that meets the hard criteria outlined at Hong Kong a year ago. (Continued w= ork
on the MMHF/SHF concept may eventually deliver a better solution, but it is=
not yet ready.)

Luke

--001a113daaa4abc81b05470d5d9f--