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 CF27F8EE for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:46:28 +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 0F4DFD4 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:46:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 916BA38ABED2; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:46:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:170328:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::x8Khl5OzgPUlsT9I:kL+r X-Hashcash: 1:25:170328:jl2012@xbt.hk::bs9X208YfJdqME5f:kr3c X-Hashcash: 1:25:170328:1240902@gmail.com::Jtt3lP/dx4bLbWCc:FhSP From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Johnson Lau Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:46:20 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.29; 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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201703281746.20709.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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] 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:46:28 -0000 On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 5:34:23 PM Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote: > You are probably not the first one nor last one with such idea. Actually, > Luke wrote up a BIP with similar idea in mind: >=20 > https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-hfprep/bip-hfprep.mediawiki > >=20 > Instead of just lifting the block size limit, he also suggested to remove > many other rules. I think he has given up this idea because it=E2=80=99s = just too > complicated. > ... > So if we really want to get prepared for a potential HF with unknown > parameters, I=E2=80=99d suggest to set a time bomb in the client, which w= ill stop > processing of transactions with big warning in GUI. The user may still > have an option to continue with old rules at their own risks. Indeed, actually implementing hfprep proved to be overly complicated. I like the idea of a time bomb that just shuts down the client after it=20 determine it's stale and refuses to start without an explicit override. That should work no matter what the hardfork is, and gives us a good=20 expectation for hardfork timeframes. > Or, instead of increasing the block size, we make a softfork to decrease > the block size to 1kB and block reward to 0, activating far in the future. > This is similar to the difficulty bomb in ETH, which will freeze the > network. I don't like this idea. It leaves the node open to attack from blocks actua= lly=20 meeting the criteria. Maybe the absolute minimum as Jeremy suggested. Luke