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 2939B12C1 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 00:20:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB65D265 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 00:20:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7550010801BA; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 00:17:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:150903:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::gjJx0xEjHcqAcGZI:ck/GL X-Hashcash: 1:25:150903:jgarzik@gmail.com::17pr+yc=vZvLaHgn:g3hha From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Jeff Garzik Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 00:17:42 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.1-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201509030017.43036.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 100 repo 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: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 00:20:06 -0000 On Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:58:54 PM Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote: > The repo: https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100 What is the purpose of the newly added 1 MB floor? It seems clear from the current information available that 1 MB is presently too high for the limit, and it is entirely one-sided to only allow increases when decreases are much more likely to be needed in the short term. Must the new size limit votes use 11 bytes of coinbase? Why not just use a numeric value pushed after height? Since this is a hardfork, I suggest increasing the coinbase length to allow for 100 bytes *in addition* to the pushed height and size-vote. I suggest combining 2 & 4 into a single rule lifting the 1 MB limit to 32 MB (or whatever value is deemed appropriate) to make it clear that the limit remains a part of the consensus protocol and p2p protocol limits are not to have an effect on consensus rules. Furthermore, I suggest modifying the voting to require 50% to set the limit floor. This has the effect of merely coordinating what miners can already effectively do today by rejecting blocks larger than some collusion- determined limit. Thoughts? Luke