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 1C97C8B4 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:35:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 10:03:25 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from homiemail-a8.g.dreamhost.com (homie.mail.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.208]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7499DA8 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:35:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from homiemail-a8.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a8.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B350DD22070 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 00:35:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=jrn.me.uk; h=subject:to :references:from:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to: content-type; s=jrn.me.uk; bh=DkqMhy6CLlx4ByhyxNP8FuxSAUM=; b=Gc Q1j4uXld3vPkmXXLFJH/Q2CprPuWeFya5nIUtPKhc5vvNlDx7vvCTkEJS2JKIwMi acvdKofzBCJj4KXxP18JO9WyPjH64ZVDOdFiAyLcGkAWRcukYiWMg6MfbYJ1a41A 78P+Qwj1gABRrQUH7bEimoQLels4oN9fxd5erGVMw= Received: from [192.168.0.6] (cpc12-cmbg17-2-0-cust830.5-4.cable.virginm.net [86.30.131.63]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jrn@jrn.me.uk) by homiemail-a8.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54550D22074 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 00:35:36 -0700 (PDT) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <20150622192308.GA23545@savin.petertodd.org> From: Ross Nicoll Message-ID: <55890C4C.3070909@jrn.me.uk> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:35:40 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150622192308.GA23545@savin.petertodd.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030703040606090100070205" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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] 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 07:35:38 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030703040606090100070205 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't think essentially replacing most of Testnet with a specialised test chain is a good idea, but this might be a good time to consider a 4th test network with very large blocks from genesis onwards. I do tend to think 2 years of 8mb blocks is excessive as a test, too, and while certainly large projects should have or can raise funds for test infrastructure, I would worry about the smaller stuff out there. Is there anything specific 2 years gives us over, say, 6 months? Ross On 22/06/2015 20:23, 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 > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --------------030703040606090100070205 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't think essentially replacing most of Testnet with a specialised test chain is a good idea, but this might be a good time to consider a 4th test network with very large blocks from genesis onwards.

I do tend to think 2 years of 8mb blocks is excessive as a test, too, and while certainly large projects should have or can raise funds for test infrastructure, I would worry about the smaller stuff out there. Is there anything specific 2 years gives us over, say, 6 months?

Ross

On 22/06/2015 20:23, 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

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.

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.

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.

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.




_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--------------030703040606090100070205--