public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew C <achow101@gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>, bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 18:53:03 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <03b80a7b-6c8c-cdff-1826-6535bef12993@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201702052302.29599.luke@dashjr.org>


On 2/5/2017 6:02 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any block size 
> increase hardfork ever.
From what I have observed, it seems to be that people are more so
opposed to a hard fork when there is a comparable soft fork available
than simply opposed to any block size increase hard fork ever. From the
various threads discussing your proposal, it seemed that many would
favor it if it increased over 1 MB sooner or if it never even decreased
in the first place.

>  Your version doesn't address the current block size 
> issues (ie, the blocks being too large). 
Many users are of the opposite opinion, that the block size is too
small. I understand that the decrease is to allow the blockchain size to
grow more slowly thereby allowing users to be more likely to run full
nodes. Unfortunately, I think that we are way past the point of no
return on that. The blockchain is already 100+ GB. Decreasing the block
size is not going to make that any smaller and is not going to make it
any less painful to run a full node. Given that in order to start up a
new full node will still require downloading at least 100 GB of data, I
don't think that decreasing the block size will better facilitate full
node creation. Furthermore, the current trend with ISPs (at least in the
US) is implementing data and bandwidth caps so users are still unlikely
to start up new full nodes regardless of any changes that we can
currently do.

> So you've retained the only certain-
> DOA parts of my proposal, and removed the most useful part... I'm not sure the 
> point. Also, your version is now EXCLUSIVELY a hardfork, so it makes no sense 
> to keep the BIP 9 deployment at all - either it gets consensus or it doesn't, 
> but miners have no part in deployment of it.
Yes, I know deployment needs to be fixed. I was more proposing this for
comment on the modified block size schedule. I just kept the deployment
as it was originally. However, we could use a modified version of BIP 9
by using one of the top three bits and a longer locked-in period as a
grace period for all users to upgrade.
>
> On Sunday, February 05, 2017 9:50:26 PM Andrew C via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Many people have expressed discontent with Luke-jr's proposed block size
>> BIP, in particular with the decrease in size that would occur if it were
>> to be activated prior to 2024.
>>
>> I have decided to modify the proposal to instead begin the increase
>> steps at the current 1000000 byte limit. The increases and the time spam
>> of each increase will remain the same, just that the increase begins
>> from 1000000 bytes instead of 300000 bytes.
>>
>> Furthermore, instead of a fixed schedule from a fixed point in time, the
>> increases will instead be calculated off of the MTP of the activation
>> block (the first block to be in the active state for this fork).
>>
>> While this proposal shares many of the same issues with the one it
>> modifies, I hope that it will be slightly less controversial and can
>> allow us to move forward with scaling Bitcoin.
>>
>> The full text of the proposal can be found at
>> https://github.com/achow101/bips/blob/bip-blksize/bip-blksize.mediawiki.
>> My implementation of it is available at
>> https://github.com/achow101/bitcoin/tree/bip-blksize
>>
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev




  reply	other threads:[~2017-02-05 23:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-02-05 21:50 [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP Andrew C
2017-02-05 23:02 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-02-05 23:53   ` Andrew C [this message]
     [not found]     ` <C5621135-FBC8-44E7-9EC0-AFDEEBB6031E@thomaslerin.io>
2017-02-06 21:00       ` Andrew C
2017-02-06 18:19   ` t. khan
     [not found]     ` <201702061953.40774.luke@dashjr.org>
2017-02-06 20:25       ` t. khan
2017-02-08 14:44         ` alp alp
2017-02-08 15:51           ` Andrew Johnson
2017-02-08 15:57             ` alp alp
2017-02-08 16:28               ` Andrew Johnson
2017-02-08 18:16                 ` alp alp
2017-02-08 19:53                   ` t. khan
2017-02-08 19:56                   ` Andrew Johnson
2017-02-08 20:13                     ` alp alp
2017-02-10 10:33                       ` Btc Drak
2017-02-10  4:10 Ryan J Martin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=03b80a7b-6c8c-cdff-1826-6535bef12993@gmail.com \
    --to=achow101@gmail.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=luke@dashjr.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox