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
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
|
Return-Path: <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D847689E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:53:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f43.google.com (mail-vk0-f43.google.com
[209.85.213.43])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF52B107
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:53:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id d188so97157314vka.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:53:13 -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=sknuyhGKthIb/uQiCJPVpfeTm6a5SD3kb2YUpey6Pso=;
b=cesO7EEPkPkeLwextU/YhB2Ak7IzGtJvprPuc0xdFKIbB/IX9QIzIsDJ3Ax+eRdotK
tt4I6ibEmDRFEURpvfBBRBD6JEJHHzyFIRHgtuJGojSHbYnyPdifRo5j7BW8zQNsD1XU
tW55L6eAgG6dH07o76lbe8vhv2Fk/UjtoTGQoE76nJ7SiBaESGK1BoPOcD3sBpthObCL
s/uWRbqoaBckAjmfucwvjIveZ8ASMtfJHv9wsAeX6mad4eDVbqCdmoW2ssn1pKtWIeb+
0R7RlWsrHl2+4B2iBPhczEKoicJYfyA/4MMpBaDXDt4dcrSF5Lx5j3DfdEDHwVVB4wck
KDtg==
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=sknuyhGKthIb/uQiCJPVpfeTm6a5SD3kb2YUpey6Pso=;
b=qZKAp0T31u4MEcZnENfa9kRb+hCtakugB2lqfGlEvBYD9hbd6qFMgepxUY7OlTv7TO
STCmeV/vXjIClqPNdndHlnerNc/utAHfvY/lhd+yUKaiVLOoZlNbANVkEfa+tkX5A9AZ
om51f+rFHFD5f7uQzI2fmlVrAAeM9J0x+qChTFhEWve0jR7c+utxX0AbKMv9cJsFI0jq
PZ4fxlqssFbZinziQ/dZ4h+Zc5sUpfD0iBjqKY1Mo97DtKr286u1zJ07tm7uWcLNqf4n
GLvw7DtJBEBvRdvZc/X2hAmjLrS/o9htAUe4tau9gjz+3I9nTXUMvgQAoSjQdfRbaa88
GU6w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2CY8Os4GmwzIQsIoY80PIDn33P7LTWHpKloDlBoN4IL3ySnwJEK5PtDw+JXNjl20O9jeNnJPoq2IGusA==
X-Received: by 10.31.98.66 with SMTP id w63mr12667559vkb.165.1490723593013;
Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.128.19 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <RO1P152MB16424A3706E408DA163B1D95F5320@RO1P152MB1642.LAMP152.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <CAFzgq-xizPMNqfvW11nUhd6HmfZu8aGjcR9fshEsf6o5HOt_dA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMBsKS8oSKS5g8UEyCu18bjzGJWpA+sJEaxBUV9FXAmXhX1ApA@mail.gmail.com>
<RO1P152MB16424A3706E408DA163B1D95F5320@RO1P152MB1642.LAMP152.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From: Alphonse Pace <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:53:11 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMBsKS9n7Mxd2LwXwSXUjHbBQj932QQW7-CnXe10tia6Ga0iBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Juan Garavaglia <jg@112bit.com>, Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c091dc2384f4d054bce2247
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, 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
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:53:14 -0000
--94eb2c091dc2384f4d054bce2247
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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 purpose
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 perspective
> 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 even
> likelihood) of removing many participants from the network, including many
> 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
>
>
>
--94eb2c091dc2384f4d054bce2247
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Juan,<div><br></div><div>I suggest you take a look at this=
paper:=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf">http=
://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf</a> =C2=A0It may help you form op=
inions 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 provides up to =
this limit.</div><div><br></div><div>8MB is most definitely not safe today.=
</div><div><br></div><div>Whether it is unsafe or impossible is the topic, =
since Wang Chun proposed making the block size limit 32MiB. =C2=A0<br></div=
><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div>=
<div class=3D"gmail_extra">Wang Chun,</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br>C=
an you specify what meeting you are talking about?=C2=A0 You seem to have n=
ot replied on that point.=C2=A0 Who were the participants and what was the =
purpose of this meeting?</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_extra">-Alphonse</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Juan Garavaglia <span di=
r=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:jg@112bit.com" target=3D"_blank">jg@112bit.=
com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
<div class=3D"m_-8711817936055089631WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri",sans-serif">Alphonse,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri",sans-serif"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri",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 or 1MB is to low today.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri",sans-serif"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri",sans-serif">If is unsafe or impossible to raise the blocksize i=
s a different topic.</span>=C2=A0</p></div></div></blockquote><blockquote c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;=
padding-left:1ex"><div lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple"><div c=
lass=3D"m_-8711817936055089631WordSection1"><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span st=
yle=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u>=
<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri",sans-serif"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri",sans-serif">Regards<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri",sans-serif"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri",sans-serif">Juan<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri",sans-serif"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri",sans-serif"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"=
;Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;=
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev-=
bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev-bounces@li=
sts.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a> [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev-boun=
ces@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev-bounces@<wbr>l=
ists.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 <<a href=3D"mailto:1240902@gmail.com" target=3D"_bl=
ank">1240902@gmail.com</a>>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <<a href=3D"=
mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev=
@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's m=
eeting<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div class=3D"h5">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<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"><u></u>=C2=A0<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 f=
or relaying are used.=C2=A0 What you seem to
be asking for is an unbound block size (or at least determined by whatever=
miners produce).=C2=A0 This has the possibility (and even likelihood) of r=
emoving many participants from the network, including many small miners. =
=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">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"><u></u>=C2=A0<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"><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>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitc=
oin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=
=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>> 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">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">I'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'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'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'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's<br>
release, they all become soft fork. We'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"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
--94eb2c091dc2384f4d054bce2247--
|
