path: root/f0/990dd2a99f5fec46a2929132bf8d98da6fae68

Return-Path: <martin.lizner@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87C5787A
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 29 Mar 2017 07:49:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qt0-f179.google.com (mail-qt0-f179.google.com
	[209.85.216.179])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E86167C
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 29 Mar 2017 07:49:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qt0-f179.google.com with SMTP id i34so5996104qtc.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:49:52 -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; 
	bh=Q6+0zlr4pLiLvVONRSEmKSXwuiwzEesMrEEUBjmmiOo=;
	b=GgPLtAYoiPkxwpr9GdE+PlBIIiPNnRYcgJ9eAtCpE8r7MzqUr42lZJzDjB9z8BO5fr
	c+C/BQKs05UqLGp2+k/0W7OIyvmh0m5A2liS8epLzpFaq2Zv0RfmwQE9+ej3y8gFhUWN
	Axfepq2G47KtJKKKh7xWflBUJEiabjGjf6Bwuxh0hMzz4kP4oPrpelya83G+3IU75kiL
	GBndd24socDp4HLVTY1+nDJ3iGP7i1hf4f69UhcJlsew9k59N3UMOTXbqWhboD2cwxG/
	e+IKTuAwoEv9O3WBb7AVB2QNg5q9zNDcec0Fep2d122uXnLjcvBnleabk5l/rt9nlNUg
	XF4w==
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;
	bh=Q6+0zlr4pLiLvVONRSEmKSXwuiwzEesMrEEUBjmmiOo=;
	b=F2Ey3nAp+8f+ZebGxlM46HNI4obRkXoMjW8WPIkAaUZAn+9dIDAafSyByuGOPO2Qi4
	M1yDPrKU+K264UN1M1YwNkWt4AQtub1AI0tH/9+mWeg35/Y3sLE56hfi//U+DJgMfcFp
	y1qnvwu2qLAxp52L22XeOU66d6d2OOOG1uUGS3dooo/FIUOye8fXXP/ZfF7Bi/fXybLz
	AeEIm/oD2qP4qV3WHhxcYFQXDfBNy/BxKA1pi7HdbjOMPPGAuib3E4M2KlCbICjY3GGl
	GL2vjdaD01P8WzhoTCGejaEkFSgqt/fHB4DcDYfnVw1kmMZwxI9MRsKu9jDjHPyThPqp
	zhUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H01SM9igmiiYUHJv7KR9VKxQjENO5KtsMFo2tN+bBkpXe5cZjUnilmrkTp4JovlFU+7PnhhPrdw/m5bAQ==
X-Received: by 10.200.56.210 with SMTP id g18mr29064112qtc.63.1490773791840;
	Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.41.124 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAFzgq-xizPMNqfvW11nUhd6HmfZu8aGjcR9fshEsf6o5HOt_dA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFzgq-xizPMNqfvW11nUhd6HmfZu8aGjcR9fshEsf6o5HOt_dA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_L=C3=ADzner?= <martin.lizner@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:49:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAB-xxiPV9oN1r2hV5a=U1pcYuiZ_qmth-AM-H+1Cjgc2uw-0xA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1142917c4dbb47054bd9d226
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, 
	RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:48:39 +0000
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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 07:49:53 -0000

--001a1142917c4dbb47054bd9d226
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

If there should be a hard-fork, Core team should author the code. Other dev
teams have marginal support among all BTC users.

Im tending to believe, that HF is necessary evil now. But lets do it in
conservative approach:
- Fix historical BTC issues, improve code
- Plan HF activation date well ahead - 12 months+
- Allow increasing block size on year-year basis as Luke suggested
- Compromise with miners on initial block size bump (e.g. 2MB)
- SegWit

Martin Lizner

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 6:59 PM, 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
>

--001a1142917c4dbb47054bd9d226
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">If there should be a hard-fork, Core team should author th=
e code. Other dev teams have marginal support among all BTC users.<div><br>=
</div><div>Im tending to believe, that HF is necessary evil now. But lets d=
o it in conservative approach:</div><div>- Fix historical BTC issues, impro=
ve code</div><div>- Plan HF activation date well ahead - 12 months+</div><d=
iv>- Allow increasing block size on year-year basis as Luke suggested</div>=
<div>- Compromise with miners on initial block size bump (e.g. 2MB)</div><d=
iv>- SegWit</div><div><br></div><div>Martin Lizner</div></div><div class=3D=
"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 6:59 P=
M, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoi=
n-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxf=
oundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I&#39=
;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s<br>
release, they all become soft fork. We&#39;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">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a1142917c4dbb47054bd9d226--