Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A92548F0 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 07:49:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com (mail-wm0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C8608C for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 07:49:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wmww144 with SMTP id w144so18940214wmw.0 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 23:49:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=i6fTCR1skGO1nkM/GDbgJL/KMxdPfSIMaua8xonJiRc=; b=zFprFjp8btBrKg+WYSxuGQyRW0A7Vha/ImpzBZIErYqeeTEp8PF84JcYXZw5FEXoaN mWh48fqKfnORRZoJC9i7KHD0UcXOZ6SZ9xPRK7K4BVNSKPZhFQlvM6elCUgYXOLg0MXw j+aovjY1Gb9xPWLfWHuzuqg5QafDa0iEUu1p6F3LxhVFdkXvjULmNbFT0G//G6Vdbh48 I3W1l4aLfHJ0eqhu9YeokXhrQ9TKQoPzRDtpRsMY90h8QZXQBzlKVFg+D++tI32KxOs9 qZNwz4Z32vUzmKksGh6gFF9HjbwnLWdEspxVs2m0hSeX2CXUzK1JwSnRWnRmrI64VI5n w4gw== X-Received: by 10.28.153.137 with SMTP id b131mr2162587wme.3.1447400962104; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 23:49:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.61.135 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 23:49:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Btc Drak Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 07:49:02 +0000 Message-ID: To: John Sacco Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114b387e31a5700524674c82 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM, HK_RANDOM_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 07:58:38 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Block size doubles at each reward halving with max block size of 32M X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 07:49:24 -0000 --001a114b387e31a5700524674c82 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > * 2 MB, height 210,000 < 420,000; (when 75% of last 1,000 blocks signal support) This doesnt give anyone a chance to upgrade and would cause a hard fork the moment a miner created a >1MB block. Flag day (hard fork) upgrades must start the change at a sufficient time in the future (greater than the current block height) to give all nodes the chance to upgrade. On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 3:37 AM, John Sacco via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I like your suggestion for the continuity and it gets us up to 2 MB in the > shorter term. Also I just noticed the math error. > > Here is a revised spec (incorporating suggestions from Chun Wang): > > Specification > > * 1 MB, height < 210,000; > * 2 MB, height 210,000 < 420,000; (when 75% of last 1,000 blocks signal > support) > * 4 MB, height 420,000 < 630,000; (year 2016) > * 8 MB, height 630,000 < 840,000; (year ~2020) > * 16 MB, height 840,000 < 1,050,000; (year ~2024) > * 32 MB, height >= 1,050,000. (year ~2028) > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> wrote: > >> How about these specs: >> * 1 MB, height < 210000; >> * 2 MB, 210000 <= height < 420000; >> * 4 MB, 420000 <= height < 630000; >> * 8 MB, 630000 <= height < 840000; >> * 16 MB, 840000 <= height < 1050000; >> * 32 MB, height >= 1050000. >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:47 AM, John Sacco via bitcoin-dev >> wrote: >> > Hi Devs, >> > >> > >> > Please consider the draft proposal below for peer review. >> > >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > >> > John >> > >> > >> > BIP >> > >> > BIP: ? >> > >> > Title: Block size doubles at each reward halving with max block size >> of >> > 32M >> > >> > Author: John Sacco >> > >> > Status: Draft >> > >> > Type: Standards Track >> > >> > Created: 2015-11-11 >> > >> > Abstract >> > >> > Change max block size to 2MB at next block subsidy halving, and double >> the >> > block size at each subsidy halving until reaching 32MB. >> > >> > Copyright >> > >> > This proposal belongs in the public domain. Anyone can use this text >> for any >> > purpose with proper attribution to the author. >> > >> > Motivation >> > >> > 1. Gradually restores block size to the default 32 MB setting >> originally >> > implemented by Satoshi. >> > >> > 2. Initial increase to 2MB at block halving in July 2016 would have >> > minimal impact to existing nodes running on most hardware and networks. >> > >> > 3. Long term solution that does not make enthusiastic assumptions >> > regarding future bandwidth and storage availability estimates. >> > >> > 4. Maximum block size of 32MB allows peak usage of ~100 tx/sec by >> year >> > 2031. >> > >> > 5. Exercise network upgrade procedure during subsidy reward halving, >> a >> > milestone event with the goal of increasing awareness among miners and >> node >> > operators. >> > >> > Specification >> > >> > 1. Increase the maximum block size to 2MB when block 630,000 is >> reached >> > and 75% of the last 1,000 blocks have signaled support. >> > >> > 2. Increase maximum block size to 4MB at block 840,000. >> > >> > 3. Increase maximum block size to 8MB at block 1,050,000. >> > >> > 4. Increase maximum block size to 16MB at block 1,260,000. >> > >> > 5. Increase maximum block size to 32MB at block 1,470,000. >> > >> > Backward compatibility >> > >> > All older clients are not compatible with this change. The first block >> > larger than 1M will create a network partition excluding not-upgraded >> > network nodes and miners. >> > >> > Rationale >> > >> > While more comprehensive solutions are developed, an increase to the >> block >> > size is needed to continue network growth. A longer term solution is >> needed >> > to prevent complications associated with additional hard forks. It >> should >> > also increase at a gradual rate that retains and allows a large >> distribution >> > of full nodes. Scheduling this hard fork to occur no earlier than the >> > subsidy halving in 2016 has the goal of simplifying the communication >> > outreach needed to achieve consensus, while also providing a buffer of >> time >> > to make necessary preparations. >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > bitcoin-dev mailing list >> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a114b387e31a5700524674c82 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> * 2 MB, height 210,0= 00 < 420,000; (when 75% of last 1,000 blocks signal support)
<= div>
This doesnt give anyone a chance to upgrade and would caus= e a hard fork the moment a miner created a >1MB block. Flag day (hard fo= rk) upgrades must start the change at a sufficient time in the future (grea= ter than the current block height) to give all nodes the chance to upgrade.=

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 3:37 AM, John Sacco via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
I like your suggestion for= the continuity and it gets us up to 2 MB in the shorter term. Also I just = noticed the math error.=C2=A0

Here is a revised spec (in= corporating suggestions from Chun Wang):

Specification

* 1 MB, height < 210,000;
* 2 MB, height 210,000 < 420,000; (when 75% = of last 1,000 blocks signal support)
* 4 M= B, height 420,000 < 630,000; (year 2016)
* 8 MB, height 630,000 < 840,000; (year ~2020)
* 16 MB, height 840,000 < 1,050,000; (year ~2024)
* 32 MB, height >=3D 1,050,000. (year ~2028)=


=

On Thu, Nov 12, 2= 015 at 9:56 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> wrote:
How about these specs:
* 1 MB, height < 210000;
* 2 MB, 210000 <=3D height < 420000;
* 4 MB, 420000 <=3D height < 630000;
* 8 MB, 630000 <=3D height < 840000;
* 16 MB, 840000 <=3D height < 1050000;
* 32 MB, height >=3D 1050000.


On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:47 AM, John Sacco via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi Devs,
>
>
> Please consider the draft proposal below for peer review.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> John
>
>
> BIP
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0BIP: ?
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0Title: Block size doubles at each reward halving with max = block size of
> 32M
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0Author: John Sacco <johnsock@gmail.com>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0Status: Draft
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0Type: Standards Track
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0Created: 2015-11-11
>
> Abstract
>
> Change max block size to 2MB at next block subsidy halving, and double= the
> block size at each subsidy halving until reaching 32MB.
>
> Copyright
>
> This proposal belongs in the public domain. Anyone can use this text f= or any
> purpose with proper attribution to the author.
>
> Motivation
>
> 1.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Gradually restores block size to the default 32 MB set= ting originally
> implemented by Satoshi.
>
> 2.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Initial increase to 2MB at block halving in July 2016 = would have
> minimal impact to existing nodes running on most hardware and networks= .
>
> 3.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Long term solution that does not make enthusiastic ass= umptions
> regarding future bandwidth and storage availability estimates.
>
> 4.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Maximum block size of 32MB allows peak usage of ~100 t= x/sec by year
> 2031.
>
> 5.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Exercise network upgrade procedure during subsidy rewa= rd halving, a
> milestone event with the goal of increasing awareness among miners and= node
> operators.
>
> Specification
>
> 1.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Increase the maximum block size to 2MB when block 630,= 000 is reached
> and 75% of the last 1,000 blocks have signaled support.
>
> 2.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Increase maximum block size to 4MB at block 840,000. >
> 3.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Increase maximum block size to 8MB at block 1,050,000.=
>
> 4.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Increase maximum block size to 16MB at block 1,260,000= .
>
> 5.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Increase maximum block size to 32MB at block 1,470,000= .
>
> Backward compatibility
>
> All older clients are not compatible with this change. The first block=
> larger than 1M will create a network partition excluding not-upgraded<= br> > network nodes and miners.
>
> Rationale
>
> While more comprehensive solutions are developed, an increase to the b= lock
> size is needed to continue network growth. A longer term solution is n= eeded
> to prevent complications associated with additional hard forks. It sho= uld
> also increase at a gradual rate that retains and allows a large distri= bution
> of full nodes.=C2=A0 Scheduling this hard fork to occur no earlier tha= n the
> subsidy halving in 2016 has the goal of simplifying the communication<= br> > outreach needed to achieve consensus, while also providing a buffer of= time
> to make necessary preparations.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a114b387e31a5700524674c82--