summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/1f/b235c605cb517bdf8f75cf437089aeeb5a956f
blob: 9ba8de0e4654662bdd4363224680b3177868d3ce (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
Return-Path: <jaredr26@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6353899
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:45:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f49.google.com (mail-vk0-f49.google.com
	[209.85.213.49])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED191AF
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:45:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f49.google.com with SMTP id z204so9744898vkd.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 29 Mar 2017 01:45:15 -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; 
	bh=CVKnSUjiAFmrcxBgiMA/o3FHmvRVLjG1SKEGohoPAuA=;
	b=Z7KycD7wThKKR1zCHT57kRfsgjkNsspZ4OUu9HfRfTB1lO+r+4HVDhNhuXdicMcp07
	h9BqsOsGVmkmFG91cAGr9aApxguzao1nEM8fwMHR8T6iDw4OE00LwhG8o3YfblC/3s07
	727dPem98bwkmm4+THSnXc0JezmmQW5fJ41Ul2dYc8dgy3yhtBQRCQkVOfrK0eWwH7Tj
	4OsEu8189P1wu0V1bBoxK7EgxYTs27eH8n6bfjdHnlYMrScB6V6UuxHonEBkc4IHWxqI
	gOIqg0YBWKFS49tWrAASdPH8NpjbzoOKWdjCePXkJycuNoIU6NmWxqvI6DIgDzXUrhPJ
	IKog==
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;
	bh=CVKnSUjiAFmrcxBgiMA/o3FHmvRVLjG1SKEGohoPAuA=;
	b=btA/6ztEsDAGGTAqXA5qXDkPmvgWRB2niF7U/v1en6wnEIAimc61+Th44msxq2HLYc
	6CESeGON8AWwLTQxQDmVeRu19PMIKbhSpnTciTbL5MOXy3SzHeOgZTb1+RD+nnYgOTeh
	XSQl70npNiJRDx5D65bRwglgCefA4JpnOJQs36VoRANsF5lS3Tn0RuhbCjctV7BOeAxC
	qSJxaFdfx8IwOJM9iuLMHMwUEGffhu/YNJ5zkEkLiEbBvkIF8XuW0gFTLHV7l47R0auF
	BC7QScvfAenow8kryQWDJ2Sd7lrpvrBMqd71f0YMbxDugIXEvLCJ9z89DH1NicYdZ6Xy
	clIg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1/aImjYhugbkV1VJ2ndButVsCMmM3ts/L88ii24acxMVTfzvJPRMrfbPfrJRylmyNZdCritz2///4KBQ==
X-Received: by 10.176.69.161 with SMTP id u30mr3576214uau.69.1490777115026;
	Wed, 29 Mar 2017 01:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.157.143 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 01:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6d7e8bb9-ef08-70bb-1609-66b063e500f1@mattcorallo.com>
References: <CAFzgq-xizPMNqfvW11nUhd6HmfZu8aGjcR9fshEsf6o5HOt_dA@mail.gmail.com>
	<6d7e8bb9-ef08-70bb-1609-66b063e500f1@mattcorallo.com>
From: Jared Lee Richardson <jaredr26@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 01:45:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD1TkXtn=9F8UW1dozRRsOVWzduUdX84EckE2igzAo_ky8EThg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c11c960616e90054bda98d1
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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:47:52 +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 08:45:16 -0000

--94eb2c11c960616e90054bda98d1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

> That said, for that to be alleviated we
could simply do something based on historical transaction growth (which
is somewhat linear, with a few inflection points),

Where do you get this?  Transaction growth for the last 4 years averages to
+65% per year and the last 2 is +80% per year.  That's very much not linear.



On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Not sure what "last week's meeting" is in reference to?
>
> Agreed that the hard fork should be well-prepared, but I think its
> dangerous to think that a hard fork as agreed upon would be a simple
> relaxation of the block size. For example, Johnson Lau's previous
> proposal, Spoonnet, which I think is probably one of the better ones,
> would be incompatible with these rules.
>
> I, of course, worry about what happens if we cannot come to consensus on
> a number to soft fork down to, potentially significantly risking miner
> profits (and, thus, the security of Bitcoin) if a group is able to keep
> things "at the status quo". That said, for that to be alleviated we
> could simply do something based on historical transaction growth (which
> is somewhat linear, with a few inflection points), but that number ends
> up being super low (eg somewhere around 2MB at the next halving, which
> SegWit itself already provides :/.
>
> We could, of course, focus on designing a hard fork's activation and
> technical details, with a very large block size increase in it (ie
> closer to 4/6MB at the next halving or so, something we at least could
> be confident we could develop software for), with intention to soft fork
> it back down if miner profits are suffering.
>
> Matt
>
> On 03/28/17 16:59, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev 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
>

--94eb2c11c960616e90054bda98d1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">&gt;=C2=A0<span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">That said, for =
that to be alleviated we</span><br style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><span style=
=3D"font-size:12.8px">could simply do something based on historical transac=
tion growth (which</span><br style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><span style=3D"font=
-size:12.8px">is somewhat linear, with a few inflection points),<br><br>Whe=
re do you get this?=C2=A0 Transaction growth for the last 4 years averages =
to +65% per year and the last 2 is +80% per year.=C2=A0 That&#39;s very muc=
h not linear.<br><br><br></span></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Matt Corallo via bit=
coin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfou=
ndation.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;padding-left:1ex">Not sure what &quot;last =
week&#39;s meeting&quot; is in reference to?<br>
<br>
Agreed that the hard fork should be well-prepared, but I think its<br>
dangerous to think that a hard fork as agreed upon would be a simple<br>
relaxation of the block size. For example, Johnson Lau&#39;s previous<br>
proposal, Spoonnet, which I think is probably one of the better ones,<br>
would be incompatible with these rules.<br>
<br>
I, of course, worry about what happens if we cannot come to consensus on<br=
>
a number to soft fork down to, potentially significantly risking miner<br>
profits (and, thus, the security of Bitcoin) if a group is able to keep<br>
things &quot;at the status quo&quot;. That said, for that to be alleviated =
we<br>
could simply do something based on historical transaction growth (which<br>
is somewhat linear, with a few inflection points), but that number ends<br>
up being super low (eg somewhere around 2MB at the next halving, which<br>
SegWit itself already provides :/.<br>
<br>
We could, of course, focus on designing a hard fork&#39;s activation and<br=
>
technical details, with a very large block size increase in it (ie<br>
closer to 4/6MB at the next halving or so, something we at least could<br>
be confident we could develop software for), with intention to soft fork<br=
>
it back down if miner profits are suffering.<br>
<br>
Matt<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
On 03/28/17 16:59, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
&gt; I&#39;ve proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Conse=
nsus<br>
&gt; but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than<=
br>
&gt; one year it seems that lots of people haven&#39;t heard of it. So I wo=
uld<br>
&gt; post this here again for comment.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should<=
br>
&gt; be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its<=
br>
&gt; limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to<br=
>
&gt; remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in<b=
r>
&gt; the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block<=
br>
&gt; halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is<br=
>
&gt; the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be<b=
r>
&gt; in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; With this patch in core&#39;s next release, Bitcoin works just as befo=
re,<br>
&gt; no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there<b=
r>
&gt; will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and=
<br>
&gt; exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three<=
br>
&gt; years.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; We don&#39;t yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size<b=
r>
&gt; limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like<br>
&gt; BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so<b=
r>
&gt; on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core&#39;s<b=
r>
&gt; release, they all become soft fork. We&#39;ll have enough time to disc=
uss<br>
&gt; all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we=
<br>
&gt; choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it<b=
r>
&gt; from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late.<=
br>
&gt; ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wb=
r>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
&gt;<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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--94eb2c11c960616e90054bda98d1--