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
|
Return-Path: <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59715DDB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:36:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com
[209.85.212.173])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2BF222D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:36:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wiae7 with SMTP id e7so10407060wia.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=6Qo7pBvKghAySuF19tJH7G/9wDo4pGzweZNrAP9RgmU=;
b=EMNK4uZb1536GGNhsUKfM042eASpW9qYk7oXJXS80Rx9TvXj7Fj27D5kgMxvczWyFj
ptBD5uovUsShQsSHUAcFTRaa2/LsDuJpyeS1X2nbLt+TQW1swmM/tNJiyi2RTO9RWn0d
KDFhTeBUH9Aqtt2kDyUxykdR3vxG5HWsDaRUYZWxVxhmCD9byWgll0ClNKKHEyC149lP
LPgh3NUzA0M6D+NLDPsbdjXroiU62Kevu0L0W8/GbOWvw3ylzk1cFhiMN/2oCeYBeetD
w21WTd9eS1lKAA6dI6eS91rIG7VJClz3x/XNaKwc4/t07XWvT718HyPzVUNsnWLfTXin
ouBQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.191.164 with SMTP id gz4mr13922190wjc.21.1440805000495;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.211.16 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2081355.cHxjDEpgpW@crushinator>
References: <CADJgMzvWKA79NHE2uFy1wb-zL3sjC5huspQcaDczxTqD_7gXOg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADr=VrQR6rYK4sJJsDpUdFJaWZqhv=AkMqcG64EhsOCg1tDxVg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMzvkBDBD9_=53kaD_6_jWH=vbWOnNwOKK5GOz8Du-F08dQ@mail.gmail.com>
<2081355.cHxjDEpgpW@crushinator>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:36:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CADJgMzsn_BAynjwFB93DLP9-xSkH4N+5D_O7CH1ajW1PUy-m0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM,
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus based block size retargeting algorithm
(draft)
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, 28 Aug 2015 23:36:42 -0000
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> wro=
te:
> However, this proposal currently fails to answer a very important questio=
n:
>
> =E2=80=A2 What is the mechanism for activation of the new consensus rule?=
It is when a certain percentage of the blocks mined in a 2016-block retarg=
eting period contain valid block-size votes?
I chose not to address hard fork methodology at this stage because I
wanted to focus on the main algorithm. There are a number of options
open to us for deployment including a simple fixed activation (which I
think is feasible because there is a a lot of awareness and the
industry shows they are willing to rally around a single proposal). If
there are any strong preferences, I can add a deployment section
although I think it's less interesting until we forge a clear way
forward with what blocksize proposal to use.
|
