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
|
Return-Path: <laanwj@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FAF5AAE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:09:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (mail-wi0-f169.google.com
[209.85.212.169])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B1E5215
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:09:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicnd19 with SMTP id nd19so36628016wic.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 05:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
bh=xfjkz9Te/3UZkL7WcYRzRJvsf8D6qzN16a+YEyPi7H8=;
b=Cvy628OKPRsO7qekZ1Ey96k0nbLORCianazWPLhSujRVvoKSB6aNwZhFRp5lj8oSXy
qmaRpllbM4lzI8/kO4LMoyWbI/AX9UhAmwjSXVYxtHRLVNzqcGjuSLAiIq13f5+MQEL4
xPY/J92WmKbgfwaPPMgpSEqD539rTOJlGDyPS6xqwByuKQdUYPta4M3kzgAjj+On3yH6
mxBTIcXYqqJP7GLeninFT5sqckd8X0JI1Ib8QTFkXCbUv8YcoeoPl82sh4NZ2iVaRuTK
pUkB14IuHmMlch1ZYpeXk+1M8Q8VE2oRO0ncq5/f68kQHrkwbiuo9AMFq6sZpQHVzkVg
oYuA==
X-Received: by 10.194.173.8 with SMTP id bg8mr10991361wjc.65.1435406982130;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 05:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from amethyst.visucore.com (dhcp-089-098-228-253.chello.nl.
[89.98.228.253])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 12sm54547115wjw.17.2015.06.27.05.09.40
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 05:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 14:09:39 +0200
From: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Jorge =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tim=F3n?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Message-ID: <20150627120935.GD25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjOj9eXiDG0F6G54SVKkStF_1HRu2wzGqtFF5X_NAWy4w@mail.gmail.com>
<20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
<CABm2gDr3orTHMN1q8vGmy3NpXWPy5i=zHhGneDGUk=ney3-e+Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDr3orTHMN1q8vGmy3NpXWPy5i=zHhGneDGUk=ney3-e+Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
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
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
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: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:09:44 -0000
Jorge,
> Provided they're also uncontroversial, they don't need to be that
> different (in terms of deployment) from softforks. Since they risks
> are bigger you just need to give more time for users and alternative
> software to upgrade.
Sure, most extreme: if secp256k1 or SHA256 starts to show chinks in its armor, or practical quantum computing is getting powerful enough to factor discrete logarithms of those sizes, I don't doubt everyone would go along with a proposal to add new crypto algos.
I do expect there are other possible hardforks that are uncontroversial. Either
- minor issues (maybe solving the time-warp issue with mining) issues planned on the long term
- features that are not politically loaded, on the long term
- major emergencies (anything that is clearly an 'exploit' with regard to coin holders or miners)
Not sure though. The only way to find out is to propose them and see. Maybe wait a bit until things have cooled down...
Note that anything non-critical and non-controversial can be planned and time-locked, say, 5 years ahead, obliviating the need for anyone to quickly upgrade their client.
Wladimir
|
