summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/46/cb735d66ef6079585d26a6ce6adcb17d3ad869
blob: 925457b08fa14941576bec67a28163cffb0dd304 (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
Return-Path: <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86FD167
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:10:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from s47.web-hosting.com (s47.web-hosting.com [199.188.200.16])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E159ADE
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:10:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:40188 helo=server47.web-hosting.com)
	by server47.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <jl2012@xbt.hk>) id 1ZL0iQ-003es2-Eh
	for bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org;
	Thu, 30 Jul 2015 23:10:34 -0400
Received: from 119.246.245.241 ([119.246.245.241]) by
	server47.web-hosting.com (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2015
	03:10:34 +0000
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:10:34 +0000
Message-ID: <20150731031034.Horde.pF0_RVukjyAUe06VAuvqaA1@server47.web-hosting.com>
From: jl2012@xbt.hk
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <20150730181450.Horde.mXJp1wMjXROJvXZ_Vhv2RQ2@server47.web-hosting.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150730181450.Horde.mXJp1wMjXROJvXZ_Vhv2RQ2@server47.web-hosting.com>
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H5 (6.1.4)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
	please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server47.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - xbt.hk
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server47.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id:
	jl2012@xbt.hk
X-Source: 
X-Source-Args: 
X-Source-Dir: 
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CORRECTIONS: A summary of block size hardfork
 proposals
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:10:36 -0000

I am making some corrections to my previous summary

Currently, there are 4 block size BIP by Bitcoin developers:

BIP100 by Jeff:  
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf
BIP101 by Gavin:  
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki
BIP102 by Jeff: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/173/files
BIP??? by Pieter (called "BIP103" below):  
https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6

To facilitate further discussion, I'd like to summarize these  
proposals by a series of questions. Please correct me if I'm wrong.  
Something like sigop limit are less controversial and are not shown.

Should we use a miner voting mechanism to initiate the hardfork?
BIP100: Yes, support with 10800 out of last 12000 blocks (90%)
BIP101: Yes, support with 750 out of last 1000 blocks (75%)
BIP102: No
BIP103: No

When should we initiate the hardfork?
BIP100: 2016-01-11#
BIP101: 2 weeks after 75% miner support, but not before 2016-01-11
BIP102: 2015-11-11
BIP103: 2017-01-01

# The network does not actually fork until having 90% miner support

What should be the block size at initiation?
BIP100: 1MB
BIP101: 8MB*
BIP102: 2MB
BIP103: 1MB

* It depends on the exact time of initiation, e.g. 8MB if initiated on  
2016-01-11, 16MB if initiated on 2018-01-10.

Should we allow further increase / decrease?
BIP100: By miner voting, 0.5x - 2x every 12000 blocks (~3 months)
BIP101: Double every 2 years, with linear interpolations in between  
(41.4% p.a.)
BIP102: No
BIP103: +4.4% every 97 days (double every 4.3 years, or 17.7% p.a.)

The earliest date for a >=2MB block?
BIP100: 2016-04-03^
BIP101: 2016-01-11
BIP102: 2015-11-11
BIP103: 2020-12-27

^ Assuming 10 minutes blocks and votes cast before 2016-01-11 are not counted

What should be the final block size?
BIP100: 32MB is the max, but it is possible to reduce by miner voting
BIP101: 8192MB
BIP102: 2MB
BIP103: 2048MB

When should we have the final block size?
BIP100: Decided by miners
BIP101: 2036-01-06
BIP102: 2015-11-11
BIP103: 2063-07-09