From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7CFBBBF for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 19:17:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail149101.authsmtp.com (outmail149101.authsmtp.com [62.13.149.101]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19DAE1BA for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 19:17:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) by punt15.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5NJH3ue074720; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:17:03 +0100 (BST) Received: from muck ([209.141.138.18]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t5NJGxxW091649 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:17:02 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:16:59 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Gavin Andresen Message-ID: <20150623191659.GF30235@muck> References: <20150622192308.GA23545@savin.petertodd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+ts6NCQ4mrNQIV8p" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150622192308.GA23545@savin.petertodd.org> X-Server-Quench: 6da8a7a2-19dc-11e5-b396-002590a15da7 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aAdMdAEUEkAaAgsB AmMbWVReUVp7WWE7 aQpYcwRZY1RPXA10 UUBWR1pVCwQmRRl/ fGlWGn5yfgRAfHc+ ZEZlWXMVWhArfRd6 E0xJFGRSNnphaTUa TRJbfgVJcANIexZF O1F6ACIKLwdSbGoL FQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpg Ci0XJFwOCWwqJnZu Dx4DDTgjWFYORyg/ MhgrYlQYG00Sel4z I1ZpWFQTKRIbEQA2 X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 209.141.138.18/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 19:17:09 -0000 --+ts6NCQ4mrNQIV8p Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 03:23:09PM -0400, Peter Todd wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 02:18:19PM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote: > > I promised to write a BIP after I'd implemented > > increase-the-maximum-block-size code, so here it is. It also lives at: > > https://github.com/gavinandresen/bips/blob/blocksize/bip-8MB.mediawiki >=20 > It's important that we see a wide range of realistic testing of what an > 8MB limit could look in the near future. An important part of that > testing is load testing. >=20 > As of writing the BIP above has no mention of what switchover rules will > be used for testnet; code floating around has August 1st 2015 as that > date. I propose we use August 1st 2013. >=20 > This switch over date should be set in the _past_ to allow for the > creation (via reorg) of a realistic full-load blockchain on testnet to > fully test the real-world behavior of the entire infrastructure > ecosystem, including questions like the scalability of block explorers, > SPV wallets, feasibility of initial syncronization, scalability of the > UTXO set, etc. While this is of course inconvenient - 2 years of 8MB > blocks is 840GB worth of data - the Bitcoin ecosystem can-not afford to > make a change like this blindly. >=20 > I'm sure with a $3.5 billion market cap at stake we can scrape together > the resources to voluntarily run a few hundred full-load full-nodes for > testing a change with the potential to destroy that market cap. Also, as a few people have pointed out to me, the BIP proposal has no information at all about testing, reproducable or not. As much of the discussion about the acceptability of this BIP will be heavily influenced by real world test results we should expect sufficient information available to understand and reproduce those tests; the Quality Assurance Test Plan done for BIP16 is a model worth looking at: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0016/qa.mediawiki --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000008c0be16e152f86ab3a271a13c3f41c56228d72990abf7bd --+ts6NCQ4mrNQIV8p Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGrBAEBCACVBQJVibCoXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwOGMwYmUxNmUxNTJmODZhYjNhMjcxYTEzYzNmNDFjNTYy MjhkNzI5OTBhYmY3YmQvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQwIXyHOf0udzs2wf/YHDhXQSuCvvogfwDCK5s2m1A pW6KuYMMzvgXTf6ncuvDnPKRVAifCiD6BYUrE1UQQeifwg3/cBOgXZB7+zlK+nSc scaEj1u3iB5gWwJDnzDaT1dcTkhtZtgiJBHWPoHLgxj8pE4xpKu5IPHUoUs6DsUw IhBZhUKmUtYPwS3j2Pi6MIu373S2WefX/t19abt/+nWdQ1z7FCWBTapZnQtJkBb+ kslLG0eeq9ZUIx/hWyXamfp63kOeQdHqgM06qdmyzn6+vT9/MBf7qoF4qYyAENO3 lvDf160MY5Rz7CsULUJ11yNgIwKhJJIRCUC9055OVRtPzS8S0HTSRltRnBewLw== =GXON -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+ts6NCQ4mrNQIV8p--