path: root/1c/76b32cb7146652361b002bbec5de8d0ad4ba34

Return-Path: <el33th4x0r@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60986481
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:24:28 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-it0-f52.google.com (mail-it0-f52.google.com
	[209.85.214.52])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C7E4D0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:24:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-it0-f52.google.com with SMTP id y18so32513884itc.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
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=AcwEtD1D/cWzNwPmcmpHgqYiEnawRdRgcWslbneBd9g=;
	b=fx3hjR98o5mb+4wve9VxFpUkX1xEi9nIJic1zx1QouGYP3pMWUP9jAZy27IQ48Isgy
	aS71CqKcbtrhlZwup591XvdvqQ4fCWLLZjncp6XPwDCGZERpobNZuo/A+yOfeoKMh0Xc
	nEuolRNf8IAzrFCmQ5f48Gciu5isvwsCsirBdloFzCjD4b40l8ST65g4L3HucxMAlvVm
	eV1mLzyDgtw7hgEyT8mlSScdD6SnI7ukA/XzYVJE8uX87Vv91E9WVe0dX4B+Al9z8J/a
	so7sEyCOKgxhZe5CbbWxgUjYsw9C1EQhSUaJffWxEKUSx56nBCKenzbML5IuHmRJ7rnl
	pugg==
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=AcwEtD1D/cWzNwPmcmpHgqYiEnawRdRgcWslbneBd9g=;
	b=hSFUV225IiMmqLfTxAIx7/0yq2D2zEzegA2xTLqnzrswZOkbjA2HsgB2e5vku0ouSP
	QAK0SQu8GdCusvlhQX50gZTqMi5usOyqWNBvgHWqAmHWcc0tq08cfQt1Ze9TamTIdz55
	JmhDylMSXDkeo26aa72XyOKPhgWEy+lC/KL47TFSmTSA8BKoDLRkbV1M+ezfRKUcHdjR
	aTXkKtXQmbLWvvXJHHWqggr7Dr9H4E/Rm7kYdd+AmwBtYxXI6V5lci9v1/8dQk0P7402
	hheZjO/eML5AW+A4Ji8r63Gbm/HYKvjoli4wbVAekCiYhWnRsQEpPQVPvON4sUQuRn/G
	8DAw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0XlZgbDdruyO0fOdcyse0slEKGlJstKyi3EOBXwWr2jsczobaVrJWVqUy9sK63FccgbohfVlLiKEb8jA==
X-Received: by 10.107.172.134 with SMTP id v128mr34711033ioe.49.1490768666320; 
	Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.162.7 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <RO1P152MB16428E9EFBF561B2642C3B0BF5320@RO1P152MB1642.LAMP152.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <CAFzgq-xizPMNqfvW11nUhd6HmfZu8aGjcR9fshEsf6o5HOt_dA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMBsKS8oSKS5g8UEyCu18bjzGJWpA+sJEaxBUV9FXAmXhX1ApA@mail.gmail.com>
	<RO1P152MB16424A3706E408DA163B1D95F5320@RO1P152MB1642.LAMP152.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
	<CAMBsKS9n7Mxd2LwXwSXUjHbBQj932QQW7-CnXe10tia6Ga0iBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<RO1P152MB16428E9EFBF561B2642C3B0BF5320@RO1P152MB1642.LAMP152.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Emin_G=C3=BCn_Sirer?= <el33th4x0r@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:24:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPkFh0uGcN=6Sgyb5z61h36CS3-VfNHZDHoM+hpqmKFdF+_L0A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Juan Garavaglia <jg@112bit.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1148d5d4cc8a75054bd8a0e5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLY,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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:47:36 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:24:28 -0000

--001a1148d5d4cc8a75054bd8a0e5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>Even when several of the experts involved in the document you refer has my
respect and admiration, I do not agree with some of their conclusions

I'm one of the co-authors of that study. I'd be the first to agree with
your conclusion
and argue that the 4MB size suggested in that paper should not be used
without
compensation for two important changes to the network.

Our recent measurements of the Bitcoin P2P network show that network speeds
have improved tremendously. From February 2016 to February 2017, the averag=
e
provisioned bandwidth of a reachable Bitcoin node went up by approximately
70%.
And that's just in the last year.

Further, the emergence of high-speed block relay networks, like Falcon (
http://www.falcon-net.org)
and FIBRE, as well as block compression, e.g. BIP152 and xthin, change the
picture dramatically.

So, the 4MB limit mentioned in our paper should not be used as a protocol
limit today.

Best,
- egs



On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Juan Garavaglia via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Alphonse,
>
>
>
> Even when several of the experts involved in the document you refer has m=
y
> respect and admiration, I do not agree with some of their conclusions som=
e
> of their estimations are not accurate other changed like Bootstrap Time,
> Cost per Confirmed Transaction they consider a network of 450,000,00 GH a=
nd
> today is 3.594.236.966 GH, the energy consumption per GH is old, the cost
> of electricity is wrong even when the document was made and is hard to fi=
nd
> any parameter used that is valid for an analysis today.
>
>
>
> Again with all respect to the experts involved in that analysis is not
> valid today.
>
>
>
> I tend to believe more in Moore=E2=80=99s law, Butters' Law of Photonics =
and
> Kryder=E2=80=99s Law all has been verified for many years and support tha=
t 32 MB in
> 2020 are possible and equals or less than 1 MB in 2010.
>
>
>
> Again may be is not possible Johnson Lau and LukeJr invested a significan=
t
> amount of time investigating ways to do a safe HF, and may be not possibl=
e
> to do a safe HF today but from processing power, bandwidth and storage is
> totally valid and Wang Chung proposal has solid grounds.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Juan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Alphonse Pace [mailto:alp.bitcoin@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:53 PM
> *To:* Juan Garavaglia <jg@112bit.com>; Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
>
>
>
> Juan,
>
>
>
> I suggest you take a look at this paper: http://fc16.ifca.ai/
> bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf  It may help you form opinions based in science
> rather than what appears to be nothing more than a hunch.  It shows that
> even 4MB is unsafe.  SegWit provides up to this limit.
>
>
>
> 8MB is most definitely not safe today.
>
>
>
> Whether it is unsafe or impossible is the topic, since Wang Chun proposed
> making the block size limit 32MiB.
>
>
>
>
>
> Wang Chun,
>
>
> Can you specify what meeting you are talking about?  You seem to have not
> replied on that point.  Who were the participants and what was the purpos=
e
> of this meeting?
>
>
>
> -Alphonse
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Juan Garavaglia <jg@112bit.com> wrote:
>
> Alphonse,
>
>
>
> In my opinion if 1MB limit was ok in 2010, 8MB limit is ok on 2016 and
> 32MB limit valid in next halving, from network, storage and CPU perspecti=
ve
> or 1MB was too high in 2010 what is possible or 1MB is to low today.
>
>
>
> If is unsafe or impossible to raise the blocksize is a different topic.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Juan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org [mailto:
> bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org] *On Behalf Of *Alphonse
> Pace via bitcoin-dev
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:24 PM
> *To:* Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
>
>
>
> What meeting are you referring to?  Who were the participants?
>
>
>
> Removing the limit but relying on the p2p protocol is not really a true
> 32MiB limit, but a limit of whatever transport methods provide.  This can
> lead to differing consensus if alternative layers for relaying are used.
> What you seem to be asking for is an unbound block size (or at least
> determined by whatever miners produce).  This has the possibility (and ev=
en
> likelihood) of removing many participants from the network, including man=
y
> small miners.
>
>
>
> 32MB in less than 3 years also appears to be far beyond limits of safety
> which are known to exist far sooner, and we cannot expect hardware and
> networking layers to improve by those amounts in that time.
>
>
>
> It also seems like it would be much better to wait until SegWit activates
> in order to truly measure the effects on the network from this increased
> capacity before committing to any additional increases.
>
>
>
> -Alphonse
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I've proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Consensus
> but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than
> one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I would
> post this here again for comment.
>
> The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should
> be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.
>
> Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its
> limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to
> remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in
> the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block
> halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is
> the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be
> in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.
>
> With this patch in core's next release, Bitcoin works just as before,
> no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there
> will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and
> exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three
> years.
>
> We don't yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size
> limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like
> BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so
> on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core's
> release, they all become soft fork. We'll have enough time to discuss
> all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we
> choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it
> from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork.
>
> Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

--001a1148d5d4cc8a75054bd8a0e5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">&gt;<span style=3D"font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-siz=
e:14.6667px">Even when several of the experts involved in the document you =
refer has my respect and admiration, I do not agree with some of their conc=
lusions</span><div><span style=3D"font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:=
14.6667px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-family:calibri,sans-se=
rif;font-size:14.6667px">I&#39;m one of the co-authors of that study. I&#39=
;d be the first to agree with your conclusion</span></div><div><span style=
=3D"font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px">and=C2=A0</span><sp=
an style=3D"font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px">argue that =
the 4MB size=C2=A0</span><span style=3D"font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font=
-size:14.6667px">suggested in that paper should not be used without</span><=
/div><div><span style=3D"font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px=
">compensation for two important changes to the network.</span></div><div><=
span style=3D"font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px"><br></spa=
n></div><div><font face=3D"calibri, sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:14=
.6667px">Our recent measurements of the Bitcoin P2P network show that netwo=
rk speeds</span></font></div><div><font face=3D"calibri, sans-serif"><span =
style=3D"font-size:14.6667px">have improved tremendously. From February 201=
6 to February 2017, the average</span></font></div><div><font face=3D"calib=
ri, sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:14.6667px">provisioned bandwidth o=
f a reachable Bitcoin node went up by approximately 70%.=C2=A0</span></font=
></div><div><font face=3D"calibri, sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:14.=
6667px">And that&#39;s just in the last year.</span></font></div><div><font=
 face=3D"calibri, sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:14.6667px"><br></spa=
n></font></div><div><font face=3D"calibri, sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-=
size:14.6667px">Further, the emergence of high-speed block relay networks, =
like Falcon=C2=A0</span></font><span style=3D"font-size:14.6667px;font-fami=
ly:calibri,sans-serif">(<a href=3D"http://www.falcon-net.org">http://www.fa=
lcon-net.org</a>)</span></div><div><font face=3D"calibri, sans-serif"><span=
 style=3D"font-size:14.6667px">and FIBRE, as well as block compression, e.g=
. BIP152 and xthin, change the picture dramatically.=C2=A0</span></font></d=
iv><div><br></div><div><font face=3D"calibri, sans-serif"><span style=3D"fo=
nt-size:14.6667px">So, the 4MB limit mentioned in our paper s</span></font>=
<span style=3D"font-size:14.6667px;font-family:calibri,sans-serif">hould no=
t be used as a protocol limit today.=C2=A0</span></div><div><br></div><div>=
Best,</div><div>- egs</div><div><br></div><div><font face=3D"calibri, sans-=
serif"><span style=3D"font-size:14.6667px"><br></span></font></div></div><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 28, 201=
7 at 3:36 PM, Juan Garavaglia via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin=
-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex">





<div lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
<div class=3D"m_6410332602410038595WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif">Alphonse,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif">Even when several of the experts involved in the do=
cument you refer has my respect and admiration, I do not agree with some of=
 their conclusions some of their estimations are
 not accurate other changed like Bootstrap Time, Cost per Confirmed Transac=
tion they consider a network of 450,000,00 GH and today is 3.594.236.966 GH=
, the energy consumption per GH is old, the cost of electricity is wrong ev=
en when the document was made and
 is hard to find any parameter used that is valid for an analysis today.<u>=
</u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif">Again with all respect to the experts involved in t=
hat analysis is not valid today.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif">I tend to believe more in Moore=E2=80=99s law, Butt=
ers&#39; Law of Photonics and Kryder=E2=80=99s Law all has been verified fo=
r many years and support that 32 MB in 2020 are possible and equals
 or less than 1 MB in 2010.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif">Again may be is not possible Johnson Lau and LukeJr=
 invested a significant amount of time investigating ways to do a safe HF, =
and may be not possible to do a safe HF today
 but from processing power, bandwidth and storage is totally valid and Wang=
 Chung proposal has solid grounds.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif">Regards<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif">Juan<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot=
;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;=
font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"> Alphonse Pace [mailto:<a href=
=3D"mailto:alp.bitcoin@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">alp.bitcoin@gmail.com</=
a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:53 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Juan Garavaglia &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jg@112bit.com" target=3D"_=
blank">jg@112bit.com</a>&gt;; Wang Chun &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:1240902@gmail=
.com" target=3D"_blank">1240902@gmail.com</a>&gt;<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Bitcoin Protocol Discussion &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoun=
dation.org</a>&gt;</span></p><div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week&#39;s m=
eeting<u></u><u></u></div></div><p></p><div><div class=3D"h5">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Juan,<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">I suggest you take a look at this paper:=C2=A0<a hre=
f=3D"http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf" target=3D"_blank">http:=
//fc16.ifca.ai/<wbr>bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf</a> =C2=A0It may help you for=
m opinions based in science rather than what appears to be nothing more
 than a hunch.=C2=A0 It shows that even 4MB is unsafe.=C2=A0 SegWit provide=
s up to this limit.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">8MB is most definitely not safe today.<u></u><u></u>=
</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Whether it is unsafe or impossible is the topic, sin=
ce Wang Chun proposed making the block size limit 32MiB. =C2=A0<u></u><u></=
u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Wang Chun,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br>
Can you specify what meeting you are talking about?=C2=A0 You seem to have =
not replied on that point.=C2=A0 Who were the participants and what was the=
 purpose of this meeting?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">-Alphonse<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Juan Garavaglia &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:jg@112bit.com" target=3D"_blank">jg@112bit.com</a>&gt; =
wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0i=
n 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif">Alphonse,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif">=C2=A0</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif">In my opinion if 1MB limit was ok in 2010, 8MB limi=
t is ok on 2016 and 32MB limit valid in next halving, from network,
 storage and CPU perspective or 1MB was too high in 2010 what is possible o=
r 1MB is to low today.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif">=C2=A0</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif">If is unsafe or impossible to raise the blocksize i=
s a different topic.</span>=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0i=
n 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif">=C2=A0</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif">Regards</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif">=C2=A0</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif">Juan</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif">=C2=A0</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,sans-serif">=C2=A0</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot=
;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;=
font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"=
_blank">bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a> [mailto:<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bla=
nk">bitcoin-dev-bounces@<wbr>lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:24 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Wang Chun &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:1240902@gmail.com" target=3D"_bl=
ank">1240902@gmail.com</a>&gt;; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion &lt;<a href=3D"=
mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev=
@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week&#39;s m=
eeting</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">What meeting are you referring to?=C2=A0 Who were th=
e participants?<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Removing the limit but relying on the p2p protocol i=
s not really a true 32MiB limit, but a limit of whatever transport methods =
provide.=C2=A0 This can lead to differing consensus if
 alternative layers for relaying are used.=C2=A0 What you seem to be asking=
 for is an unbound block size (or at least determined by whatever miners pr=
oduce).=C2=A0 This has the possibility (and even likelihood) of removing ma=
ny participants from the network, including
 many small miners. =C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">32MB in less than 3 years also appears to be far bey=
ond limits of safety which are known to exist far sooner, and we cannot exp=
ect hardware and networking layers to improve by those
 amounts in that time.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">It also seems like it would be much better to wait u=
ntil SegWit activates in order to truly measure the effects on the network =
from this increased capacity before committing to
 any additional increases.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">-Alphonse<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitc=
oin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=
=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<u></u=
><u></u></p>
<blockquote style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0i=
n 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-=
bottom:5.0pt">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">I&#39;ve proposed this hard fork approach last year =
in Hong Kong Consensus<br>
but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than<br>
one year it seems that lots of people haven&#39;t heard of it. So I would<b=
r>
post this here again for comment.<br>
<br>
The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should<br>
be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.<br>
<br>
Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its<br>
limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to<br>
remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in<br>
the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block<br>
halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is<br>
the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be<br>
in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.<br>
<br>
With this patch in core&#39;s next release, Bitcoin works just as before,<b=
r>
no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there<br>
will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and<br>
exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three<br>
years.<br>
<br>
We don&#39;t yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size<br>
limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like<br>
BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so<br>
on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core&#39;s<br>
release, they all become soft fork. We&#39;ll have enough time to discuss<b=
r>
all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we<br>
choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it<br>
from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork.<br>
<br>
Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late.<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/b=
itcoin-<wbr>dev</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>

<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a1148d5d4cc8a75054bd8a0e5--