Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YqhRm-00016i-Ti for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 May 2015 12:32:06 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.218.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.49; envelope-from=joel.kaartinen@gmail.com; helo=mail-oi0-f49.google.com; Received: from mail-oi0-f49.google.com ([209.85.218.49]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YqhRl-0006Vx-Jq for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 May 2015 12:32:06 +0000 Received: by oiko83 with SMTP id o83so57204234oik.1 for ; Fri, 08 May 2015 05:32:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.195.23 with SMTP id t23mr2690007oif.117.1431088320203; Fri, 08 May 2015 05:32:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.49.16 with HTTP; Fri, 8 May 2015 05:32:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 15:32:00 +0300 Message-ID: From: Joel Joonatan Kaartinen To: Matt Whitlock Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1137c846f7d06605159136f0 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (joel.kaartinen[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1YqhRl-0006Vx-Jq Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function 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: Fri, 08 May 2015 12:32:06 -0000 --001a1137c846f7d06605159136f0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Matt, It seems you missed my suggestion about basing the maximum block size on the bitcoin days destroyed in transactions that are included in the block. I think it has potential for both scaling as well as keeping up a constant fee pressure. If tuned properly, it should both stop spamming and increase block size maximum when there are a lot of real transactions waiting for inclusion. - Joel On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Cl=C3=A9ment Elbaz wrot= e: > Matt : I think proposal #1 and #3 are a lot better than #2, and #1 is my > favorite. > > I see two problems with proposal #2. > The first problem with proposal #2 is that, as we see in democracies, > there is often a mismatch between the people conscious vote and these sam= e > people behavior. > > Relying on an intentional vote made consciously by miners by choosing a > configuration value can lead to twisted results if their actual behavior > doesn't correlate with their vote (eg, they all vote for a small block si= ze > because it is the default configuration of their software, and then they > fill it completely all the time and everything crashes). > > The second problem with proposal #2 is that if Gavin and Mike are right, > there is simply no time to gather a meaningful amount of votes over the > coinbases, after the fork but before the Bitcoin scalability crash. > > I like proposal #1 because the "vote" is made using already available > data. Also there is no possible mismatch between behavior and vote. As a > miner you vote by choosing to create a big (or small) block, and your > actions reflect your vote. It is simple and straightforward. > > My feelings on proposal #3 is it is a little bit mixing apples and > oranges, but I may not seeing all the implications. > > > Le ven. 8 mai 2015 =C3=A0 09:21, Matt Whitlock a > =C3=A9crit : > >> Between all the flames on this list, several ideas were raised that did >> not get much attention. I hereby resubmit these ideas for consideration = and >> discussion. >> >> - Perhaps the hard block size limit should be a function of the actual >> block sizes over some trailing sampling period. For example, take the >> median block size among the most recent 2016 blocks and multiply it by 1= .5. >> This allows Bitcoin to scale up gradually and organically, rather than >> having human beings guessing at what is an appropriate limit. >> >> - Perhaps the hard block size limit should be determined by a vote of th= e >> miners. Each miner could embed a desired block size limit in the coinbas= e >> transactions of the blocks it publishes. The effective hard block size >> limit would be that size having the greatest number of votes within a >> sliding window of most recent blocks. >> >> - Perhaps the hard block size limit should be a function of block-chain >> length, so that it can scale up smoothly rather than jumping immediately= to >> 20 MB. This function could be linear (anticipating a breakdown of Moore'= s >> Law) or quadratic. >> >> I would be in support of any of the above, but I do not support Mike >> Hearn's proposed jump to 20 MB. Hearn's proposal kicks the can down the >> road without actually solving the problem, and it does so in a >> controversial (step function) way. >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------ >> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud >> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications >> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights >> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. >> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud > Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications > Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights > Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. > http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --001a1137c846f7d06605159136f0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Matt,

It seems you missed my sugg= estion about basing the maximum block size on the bitcoin days destroyed in= transactions that are included in the block. I think it has potential for = both scaling as well as keeping up a constant fee pressure. If tuned proper= ly, it should both stop spamming and increase block size maximum when there= are a lot of real transactions waiting for inclusion.

-= Joel

On Fri, = May 8, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Cl=C3=A9ment Elbaz <clem.ds@gmail.com> wrote:
Matt : I think proposal #1 and #3 are a lot better than #2, and #1 is my f= avorite.

I see two problems with proposal #2.
Th= e first problem with proposal #2 is that, as we see in democracies,=C2=A0 t= here is often a mismatch between the people conscious vote and these same p= eople behavior.

Relying on an=C2=A0 intentional vote made conscious= ly by miners by choosing a configuration value can lead to twisted results = if their actual behavior doesn't correlate with their vote (eg, they al= l vote for a small block size because it is the default configuration of th= eir software, and then they fill it completely all the time and everything = crashes).

The second problem with proposal #2 is that if = Gavin and Mike are right, there is simply no time to gather a meaningful am= ount of votes over the coinbases, after the fork but before the Bitcoin sca= lability crash.

I like proposal #1 because the &qu= ot;vote" is made using already available data. Also there is no possib= le mismatch between behavior and vote. As a miner you vote by choosing to c= reate a big (or small) block, and your actions reflect your vote. It is sim= ple and straightforward.

My feelings on proposal #3 is it is a= little bit mixing apples and oranges, but I may not seeing all the implica= tions.


Le=C2=A0ven. 8 mai 2015 =C3=A0=C2=A009:21, Matt Whitlock <= bip@mattwhitlock= .name> a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
Between= all the flames on this list, several ideas were raised that did not get mu= ch attention. I hereby resubmit these ideas for consideration and discussio= n.

- Perhaps the hard block size limit should be a function of the actual bloc= k sizes over some trailing sampling period. For example, take the median bl= ock size among the most recent 2016 blocks and multiply it by 1.5. This all= ows Bitcoin to scale up gradually and organically, rather than having human= beings guessing at what is an appropriate limit.

- Perhaps the hard block size limit should be determined by a vote of the m= iners. Each miner could embed a desired block size limit in the coinbase tr= ansactions of the blocks it publishes. The effective hard block size limit = would be that size having the greatest number of votes within a sliding win= dow of most recent blocks.

- Perhaps the hard block size limit should be a function of block-chain len= gth, so that it can scale up smoothly rather than jumping immediately to 20= MB. This function could be linear (anticipating a breakdown of Moore's= Law) or quadratic.

I would be in support of any of the above, but I do not support Mike Hearn&= #39;s proposed jump to 20 MB. Hearn's proposal kicks the can down the r= oad without actually solving the problem, and it does so in a controversial= (step function) way.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
= _______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment


--001a1137c846f7d06605159136f0--