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 0F7179F2 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:43:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx1.riseup.net (mx1.riseup.net [198.252.153.129]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3A171A0 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:43:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from berryeater.riseup.net (berryeater-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1156040C0A for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:43:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1435110219; bh=BKKchFgNTb7BUhE3PLCfO10yPYbxDPL1p5wtHIShCIA=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Ng2rPkbrCZOJiFs5hcLX9n/ryWOryvmKb3gzipEzUbLNHFrA5U1x419QUwbzsjaBX fBvNy/INSwc4vSxL91XC+RweMcMC17jii68BFbPc1PQFZli6kv8O8IZwuqwvdiPP0C hdnZgPwCKu6ZoHmFjn+3EL8hlLeJFyV4ucWVm4DU= Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla) with ESMTPSA id B8E73420D0 Message-ID: <558A0B4A.7090205@riseup.net> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:43:38 -0700 From: odinn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mx1 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RP_MATCHES_RCVD, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY 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: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:43:41 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 1) Hard fork not (necessarily) needed 2) See Garzik's BIP 100, better (this is not meant to say "superior to your stuff," but rather simply to say, "Better you should work with Garzik to implement BIP-100, that would be good") 3) See points 1 and 2 above 4) If still reading... changes should be (as you seem to have been trying to lean towards)... lean towards gradual change; hence, changes that would flow from this BIP would be better off oriented in a process that dies not require the "way you have done it." You did address that, to be fair - in your TODO, this link: http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks contained the following link: http://gavinandresen.ninja/bigger-blocks-another-way However, in reading that, I didn't see any meaningful statements that would refute the approach in Garzik's BIP-100. Maybe a better way to say this is, Work with Jeff Garzik (which I am sure you are already having such discussions in private) as well as the list discussions, Move forward on BIP-100 with Garzik and other developers (not such a bad plan really) and don't get caught up in XT. (If you feel you can develop XT further, that is your thing but it would perhaps make you lose focus, work together with other developers.) Relax into the process. Things will be ok. Respectfully, - -O On 06/22/2015 11:18 AM, 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 > > I don't expect any proposal to please everybody; there are > unavoidable tradeoffs to increasing the maximum block size. I > prioritize implementation simplicity -- it is hard to write > consensus-critical code, so simpler is better. > > > > > BIP: ?? Title: Increase Maximum Block Size Author: Gavin Andresen > > Status: > Draft Type: Standards Track Created: 2015-06-22 > > ==Abstract== > > This BIP proposes replacing the fixed one megabyte maximum block > size with a maximum size that grows over time at a predictable > rate. > > ==Motivation== > > Transaction volume on the Bitcoin network has been growing, and > will soon reach the one-megabyte-every-ten-minutes limit imposed by > the one megabyte maximum block size. Increasing the maximum size > reduces the impact of that limit on Bitcoin adoption and growth. > > ==Specification== > > After deployment on the network (see the Deployment section for > details), the maximum allowed size of a block on the main network > shall be calculated based on the timestamp in the block header. > > The maximum size shall be 8,000,000 bytes at a timestamp of > 2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC (timestamp 1452470400), and shall double > every 63,072,000 seconds (two years, ignoring leap years), until > 2036-01-06 00:00:00 UTC (timestamp 2083190400). The maximum size of > blocks in between doublings will increase linearly based on the > block's timestamp. The maximum size of blocks after 2036-01-06 > 00:00:00 UTC shall be 8,192,000,000 bytes. > > Expressed in pseudo-code, using integer math: > > function max_block_size(block_timestamp): > > time_start = 1452470400 time_double = 60*60*24*365*2 size_start = > 8000000 if block_timestamp >= time_start+time_double*10 return > size_start * 2^10 > > // Piecewise-linear-between-doublings growth: time_delta = > block_timestamp - t_start doublings = time_delta / time_double > remainder = time_delta % time_double interpolate = (size_start * > 2^doublings * remainder) / time_double max_size = size_start * > 2^doublings + interpolate > > return max_size > > ==Deployment== > > Deployment shall be controlled by hash-power supermajority vote > (similar to the technique used in BIP34), but the earliest possible > activation time is 2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC. > > Activation is achieved when 750 of 1,000 consecutive blocks in the > best chain have a version number with bits 3 and 14 set (0x20000004 > in hex). The activation time will be the timestamp of the 750'th > block plus a two week (1,209,600 second) grace period to give any > remaining miners or services time to upgrade to support larger > blocks. If a supermajority is achieved more than two weeks before > 2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC, the activation time will be 2016-01-11 > 00:00:00 UTC. > > Block version numbers are used only for activation; once activation > is achieved, the maximum block size shall be as described in the > specification section, regardless of the version number of the > block. > > > ==Rationale== > > The initial size of 8,000,000 bytes was chosen after testing the > current reference implementation code with larger block sizes and > receiving feedback from miners stuck behind bandwidth-constrained > networks (in particular, Chinese miners behind the Great Firewall > of China). > > The doubling interval was chosen based on long-term growth trends > for CPU power, storage, and Internet bandwidth. The 20-year limit > was chosen because exponential growth cannot continue forever. > > Calculations are based on timestamps and not blockchain height > because a timestamp is part of every block's header. This allows > implementations to know a block's maximum size after they have > downloaded it's header, but before downloading any transactions. > > The deployment plan is taken from Jeff Garzik's proposed BIP100 > block size increase, and is designed to give miners, merchants, > and full-node-running-end-users sufficient time to upgrade to > software that supports bigger blocks. A 75% supermajority was > chosen so that one large mining pool does not have effective veto > power over a blocksize increase. The version number scheme is > designed to be compatible with Pieter's Wuille's proposed "Version > bits" BIP. > > TODO: summarize objections/arguments from > http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks. > > TODO: describe other proposals and their advantages/disadvantages > over this proposal. > > > ==Compatibility== > > This is a hard-forking change to the Bitcoin protocol; anybody > running code that fully validates blocks must upgrade before the > activation time or they will risk rejecting a chain containing > larger-than-one-megabyte blocks. > > Simplified Payment Verification software is not affected, unless > it makes assumptions about the maximum depth of a transaction's > merkle branch based on the minimum size of a transaction and the > maximum block size. > > ==Implementation== > > https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoinxt/tree/blocksize_fork > > > > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing > list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > - -- http://abis.io ~ "a protocol concept to enable decentralization and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good" https://keybase.io/odinn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVigtJAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CqZwIAIG3ZQzekfccPxBOMqtim175 Crov6hrO9FaIzbLljECpUi60RKuDM/fs09ZJsKKIaJPkB5dlJjs4huc206veAIO+ K2h3DmAcA6W/Thk0C2cV3ewv+OiELDOhpeoddBBLPadAfaBGr4l9ltqWLdBtMCmw OtmiWstEuXTao9ApgoFOmybdmCjbfrfhejOOHs/pMiSn5xVE60RK4x2HFTFsHfAN fZAeLCuwuN2qWMrVrr+cbpCXjEuE1xZG3WEj7ppYoGR+AgF/Y5/U1j7S4PVpk85s CgMkpcWvLnBMmSCrllnRZy1Gfrwk36Pg0rXD/l/NNd0/KTpmPSvkX/bCyzFwbzo= =ft62 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----