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
|
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 DDA94F99
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 3 Sep 2015 07:57:11 +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 1ACAE149
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 3 Sep 2015 07:57:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:40246 helo=server47.web-hosting.com)
by server47.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.85)
(envelope-from <jl2012@xbt.hk>)
id 1ZXPOP-00257P-RY; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 03:57:09 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=_f22692d174c8b182acef4bf5ba1b6ed0"
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 03:57:09 -0400
From: jl2012@xbt.hk
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcZyK6LUcuKqSEuR-q0hTZOC3EdJsqY1HrS_ow0knDY=7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADm_WcZyK6LUcuKqSEuR-q0hTZOC3EdJsqY1HrS_ow0knDY=7A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e54e93e519d776262f9c0f4ae23f54fb@xbt.hk>
X-Sender: jl2012@xbt.hk
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.5
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,HTML_MESSAGE,
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 development mailing list <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 100 specification
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: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 07:57:12 -0000
--=_f22692d174c8b182acef4bf5ba1b6ed0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Some comments:
* The 75% rule is meaningless here. Since this is a pure relaxation of
rules, there is no such thing as "invalid version 4 blocks"
*
The implication threshold is unclear. Is it 95% or 80%?
* Softfork requires a very high threshold (95%) to "attack" the
original fork. This makes sure that unupgraded client will only see the
new fork.
* In the case of hardfork, however, the new fork is unable to attack
the original fork, and unupgraded client will never see the new fork.
The initiation of a hardfork should be based on its acceptance by the
economic majority, not miner support. 95% is an overkill and may
probably never accomplished. I strongly prefer a 80% threshold rather
than 95%.
* As I've pointed out, using 20-percentile rather than median creates
an incentive to 51% attack the uncooperative minority.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010690.html
Having said that, I don't have a strong feeling about the use of
20-percentile as threshold to increase the block size. That means the
block size is increased only when most miners agree, which sounds ok to
me.
However, using 20-percentile as threshold to DECREASE the block size
could be very dangerous. Consider that the block size has been stable at
8MB for a few years. Everyone are happy with that. An attacker would
just need to acquire 21% of mining power to break the status quo and
send us all the way to 1MB. The only way to stop such attempt is to 51%
attack the attacker. That'd be really ugly.
For technical and ethical reasons, I believe the thresholds for increase
and decrease must be symmetrical: increase the block size when the
x-percentile is bigger than the current size, decrease the block size
when the (100-x)-percentile is smaller than the current size. The
overall effect is: the block size remains unchanged unless 80% of miners
agree to.
* Please consider the use of "hardfork bit" to signify the hardfork:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist/comments/3ekhg2/bip_draft_hardfork_bit_jl2012_at_xbthk_jul_23_2015/
https://github.com/jl2012/bips/blob/master/hardforkbit.mediawiki
* Or, alternatively, please combine the hardfork with a softfork. I'm
rewriting the specification as follow (changes underlined):
* Replace static 1M block size hard limit with a floating limit
("hardLimit").
*
hardLimit floats within the range 1-32M, inclusive.
*
Initial value of hardLimit is 1M, preserving current system.
* Changing hardLimit is accomplished by encoding a proposed value
within a block's coinbase scriptSig.
* Votes refer to a byte value, encoded within the pattern "/BVd+/"
Example: /BV8000000/ votes for 8,000,000 byte hardLimit. If there is
more than one match with with pattern, the first match is counted.
* Absent/invalid votes and votes below minimum cap (1M) are counted as
1M votes. Votes above the maximum cap (32M) are counted as 32M votes.
* A new hardLimit is calculated at each difficult adjustment period
(2016 blocks), and applies to the next 2016 blocks.
* Calculate hardLimit by examining the coinbase scriptSig votes of the
previous 12,000 blocks, and taking the 20th percentile and 80th
percentile.
* New hardLimit is the median of the followings:
* min(current hardLimit * 1.2, 20-percentile)
* max(current hardLimit / 1.2, 80-percentile)
* current hardLimit
* version 4 block: the coinbase of a version 4 block must match this
pattern: "/BVd+/"
* 70% rule: If 8,400 of the last 12,000 blocks are version 4 or
greater, reject invalid version 4 blocks. (testnet4: 501 of last 1000)
* 80% rule ("Point of no return"): If 9,600 of the last 12,000 blocks
are version 4 or greater, reject all version <= 3 blocks. (testnet4: 750
of last 1000)
* Block version number is calculated after masking out high 16 bits
(final bit count TBD by versionBits outcome).
Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-09-02 23:33 寫到:
> BIP 100 initial public draft:
> https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100/blob/master/bip-0100.mediawiki [1]
>
> Emphasis on "initial" This is a starting point for the usual open
> source feedback/iteration cycle, not an endpoint that Must Be This
> Way.
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100/blob/master/bip-0100.mediawiki
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--=_f22692d174c8b182acef4bf5ba1b6ed0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN">
<html><body style=3D'font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-seri=
f'>
<pre>Some comments:</pre>
<ul>
<li>The 75% rule is meaningless here. Since this is a pure relaxation of ru=
les, there is no such thing as "invalid version 4 blocks"</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>
<pre>The implication threshold is unclear. Is it 95% or 80%?</pre>
</li>
<ul>
<li>Softfork requires a very high threshold (95%) to "attack" the original =
fork. This makes sure that unupgraded client will only see the new fork.</l=
i>
<li>In the case of hardfork, however, the new fork is unable to attack the =
original fork, and unupgraded client will never see the new fork. The initi=
ation of a hardfork should be based on its acceptance by the economic major=
ity, not miner support. 95% is an overkill and may probably never accomplis=
hed. I strongly prefer a 80% threshold rather than 95%.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>As I've pointed out, using 20-percentile rather than median creates an =
incentive to 51% attack the uncooperative minority. https://lists.linuxfoun=
dation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010690.html</li>
</ul>
<p style=3D"padding-left: 30px;"><span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap;">Hav=
ing said that, I don't have a strong feeling about the use of 20-percentile=
as threshold to increase the block size. That means the block size is incr=
eased only when most miners agree, which sounds ok to me.</span></p>
<p style=3D"padding-left: 30px;"><span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap;"></s=
pan>However, using 20-percentile as threshold to DECREASE the block size co=
uld be very dangerous. Consider that the block size has been stable at 8MB =
for a few years. Everyone are happy with that. An attacker would just need =
to acquire 21% of mining power to break the status quo and send us all the =
way to 1MB. The only way to stop such attempt is to 51% attack the attacker=
=2E That'd be really ugly.</p>
<p style=3D"padding-left: 30px;"><span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap;">For=
technical and ethical reasons, I believe the thresholds for increase and d=
ecrease must be symmetrical: increase the block size when the x-percentile =
is bigger than the current size, decrease the block size when the (100-x)-p=
ercentile is smaller than the current size. The overall effect is: the bloc=
k size remains unchanged unless 80% of miners agree to.</span></p>
<ul>
<li>Please consider the use of "hardfork bit" to signify the hardfork:</li>
</ul>
<p style=3D"padding-left: 30px;"><span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap;">htt=
ps://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist/comments/3ekhg2/bip_draft_hardfork_bi=
t_jl2012_at_xbthk_jul_23_2015/</span></p>
<p style=3D"padding-left: 30px;"><span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap;">htt=
ps://github.com/jl2012/bips/blob/master/hardforkbit.mediawiki</span></p>
<ul>
<li>Or, alternatively, please combine the hardfork with a softfork. I'm rew=
riting the specification as follow (changes underlined):</li>
</ul>
<ol>
<li>Replace static 1M block size hard limit with a floating limit ("hardLim=
it").</li>
<li>
<pre>hardLimit floats within the range 1-32M, inclusive.</pre>
</li>
<li>
<pre>Initial value of hardLimit is 1M, preserving current system.</pre>
</li>
<li><span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap;">Changing hardLimit is accomplish=
ed by encoding a proposed value within a block's coinbase scriptSig.</span>=
</li>
<ol>
<li><span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap;">Votes refer to a byte value, enc=
oded within the pattern "/BV\d+/" Example: /BV8000000/ votes for 8,000,000 =
byte hardLimit. </span><span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap; text-decoratio=
n: underline;">If there is more than one match with with pattern, the first=
match is counted.</span></li>
<li><span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap;">Absent/invalid votes and votes b=
elow minimum cap (1M) are counted as 1M votes. Votes above the maximum cap =
(32M) are counted as 32M votes.</span></li>
<li><span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap;">A new hardLimit is calculated at=
each difficult adjustment period (2016 blocks), and applies to the next 20=
16 blocks.</span></li>
<li><span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap;">Calculate hardLimit by examining=
the coinbase scriptSig votes of the previous 12,000 blocks, </span><span s=
tyle=3D"white-space: pre-wrap; text-decoration: underline;">and taking the =
20th percentile and 80th percentile.</span></li>
<li><span style=3D"text-decoration: underline; white-space: pre-wrap;">New =
hardLimit is the median of the followings:</span></li>
<ol>
<li><span style=3D"text-decoration: underline; white-space: pre-wrap;">m</s=
pan><span style=3D"text-decoration: underline; white-space: pre-wrap;">in(c=
urrent hardLimit * 1.2, 20-percentile)</span></li>
<li><span style=3D"text-decoration: underline; white-space: pre-wrap;">max(=
current hardLimit / 1.2, 80-percentile)</span></li>
<li><span style=3D"text-decoration: underline; white-space: pre-wrap;">curr=
ent hardLimit</span></li>
</ol></ol>
<li><span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><span style=3D"white-spac=
e: pre-wrap; text-decoration: underline;">version 4 block: the coinbase of =
a version 4 block must match this pattern: "/BV\d+/"</span></li>
<li><span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><span style=3D"white-spac=
e: pre-wrap; text-decoration: underline;">70%</span><span style=3D"white-sp=
ace: pre-wrap;"> rule:</span><span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap; text-dec=
oration: underline;"> If 8,400</span><span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap;"=
> of the last 12,000 blocks are version 4 or greater, reject invalid versio=
n 4 blocks. (testnet4: 501 of last 1000)</span></li>
<li><span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><span style=3D"white-spac=
e: pre-wrap; text-decoration: underline;">80%</span><span style=3D"white-sp=
ace: pre-wrap;"> rule ("Point of no return"): If </span><span style=3D"whit=
e-space: pre-wrap; text-decoration: underline;">9,600</span><span style=3D"=
white-space: pre-wrap;"> of the last 12,000 blocks are version 4 or greater=
, reject all version <=3D 3 blocks. (testnet4: 750 of last 1000)</span><=
/li>
<li><span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap;">Block version number is calculat=
ed after masking out high 16 bits (final bit count TBD by versionBits outco=
me).</span></li>
</ol>
<pre>
Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev =E6=96=BC 2015-09-02 23:33 =E5=AF=AB=E5=88=B0:
> BIP 100 initial public draft:
> https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100/blob/master/bip-0100.mediawiki [1]
>=20
> Emphasis on "initial" This is a starting point for the usual open
> source feedback/iteration cycle, not an endpoint that Must Be This
> Way.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100/blob/master/bip-0100.mediawiki
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
</pre>
</body></html>
--=_f22692d174c8b182acef4bf5ba1b6ed0--
|