-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
That's fine too. Obviously the variable maximum would work just
fine without a minimum. In fact, with the O(1) propagation
proposal, a minimum number of transactions could be enforced, think
- a percentage of the current mempool. That's actually far more
meaningful to both miners and consumers.
On 8/29/15 10:22 AM, Jameson Lopp wrote:
> I don't think you'll find much
support for introducing a mandatory minimum block size. It's quite
wasteful to "pad" blocks with transactions that the miner is just
sending back to themself. If you want to solve the block
propagation issue, I'd recommend instead working on O(1) block
propagation.
>
> The Bitcoin Relay Network already allows miners to relay
blocks much faster: http://bitcoinrelaynetwork.org/
>
> The next step would be getting O(1) block propagation into
the Bitcoin protocol. Check out Gavin's proposal:
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2
>
> - Jameson
>
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 1:41 AM, Justin M. Wray via
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Hey Bitcoiners!
>
> While I am an avid Bitcoin supporter, long-term user, and
have done
> development work on tools and platforms surrounding
Bitcoin, I have
> been very busy these past few weeks and haven't had a
chance to fully
> (or closely) monitor the Block Size debate.
>
> I'm familiar with the basics, and have read abstracts
about the
> front-running proposals (BIP 100, 101, and 102). Though
I've honestly
> not read those in depth either. With that said, I was
driving
> the other day and thought of a potential idea. I'll be
clear, this is
> just an idea, and I haven't fully fleshed it out. But I
thought I'd
> throw it out there and see what people thought.
>
> My Goal:
>
> Provide a variable block size that provides for
sustainable, long-term
> growth, and balances the block propagation, while also
being mindful
> of potential spam attacks.
>
> The Proposal:
>
> Every 2016 blocks (approximately every two weeks, at the
same time the
> difficulty is adjusted), the new block size parameters
are calculated.
>
> The calculation determines the average (mean) size of the
past 2016
> blocks. This "average" size is then doubled (200%) and
used as the
> maximum block size for the subsequent 2016 blocks. At any
point, if
> the new maximum size is calculated to be below 1MB, 1MB
is used
> instead (which prevents regression from our current
state).
>
> Introduce a block minimum, the minimum will be 25% of the
current
> maximum, calculated at the same time (that is, every 2016
blocks, at
> the same time the maximum is calculated). All blocks must
be at least
> this size in order to be valid, for blocks that do not
have enough
> transactions to meet the 25%, padding will be used. This
devalues the
> incentive to mine empty blocks in either an attempt to
deflate the
> block size, or to obtain a propagation advantage. Miners
will be
> incentivized to include transactions, as the block must
meet the
> minimum. This should ensure that even miners wishing to
always mine
> the minimum are still confirming Bitcoin transactions.
>
> At the block in which this is introduced the maximum
would stay at 1MB
> for the subsequent 2016 blocks. With the minimum being
enforced of 256KB
> .
>
> Example:
>
> * Average Block Size for the last 2016 blocks: 724KB
> * New Maximum: 1448KB
> * New Minimum: 362KB
>
> Example: (Regression Prevention)
>
> * Average Block Size for the last 2016 blocks: 250KB
> * New Maximum: 1MB
> * New Minimum: 256KB
>
> The Future:
>
> I believe that the 1MB regression prevention might need
to be changed
> in the future, to prevent a large mining population from
continually
> deflating the block size (and keeping us at the 1MB
limit).
>
> For this, the hard limit could be changed in the future
manually,
> through a process similar to the current one, though
hopefully with
> far less urgency and hysteria.
>
> Another option is to add an additional calculation,
preventing the new
> maximum from being lower than 75% of the current maximum.
This would
> substantially slow down a block-size deflation attack.
>
> Example of Block-Size Deflation Attack Prevention:
>
> * Average Block Size for the last 2016 blocks: 4MB
> * New Maximum: 8MB
> * New Minimum: 2MB
>
> * Average Block Size for the last 2016 blocks: 2MB
> * New Maximum: 6MB (2 * 200% = 4, 4< 75% of 8, So
use 8 * .75 = 6)
> * New Minimum: 1.5MB
>
> This would provide a maximum growth of 200% per
recalculation, but a
> maximum shrinkage of 75%.
>
> Request For Comments:
>
> I'd love to hear your thoughts. Why wouldn't this work?
What portion
> is flawed? Will the miners support such a proposal? Would
this even
> solve the block size issue?
>
> I will note that I don't find the 100% and 25% to be hard
and fast in
> my idea. Those we're just the values that initially
jumped out at me.
> I could easily see the minimum being anything below 50%
(above 50% and
> the network can never adjust to smaller block sizes). I
could also see
> the maximum being anything over 100%. Lastly, if a
inflation attack
> is a valid concern, a hard upper limit could be set (or
the historical
> 32MB limit could remain).
>
> I think the great part about this variable approach is
that the
> network can adjust to address spikes in volume and
readjust once those
> spikes dissipate.
>
> - --
> Thanks!
>
> - -----
> Justin M. Wray
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
>
>
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJV4UXvAAoJENo/Q5Xwcn83ZWEP/iXAlNk5p9OlOPNSoHkECcxe
>
AcartxMLrmOvAZVudU4+239TEvwPydmYX/ptmBYgrvRJfm/TWmi0ZbTioxbxTIWM
>
IlNta1Y8IOHOEgBCtSW01j1PFHIzkBHQGIuqrKHhjcNVGbegXlPm3Da0gjNuTBIe
>
IV58gf1OfYK2XjuCMQMvo3VyXUKhqbOvBNnZXr+Qo2sAtanmxHQ+TU/gjA02L9LO
>
bb8WqQDj/veGnMexGh/X58tfQ5KCfLO401F7KnConDaFdKVDikp32zaSXZ7JWf/K
>
OeseHW1OHHVdYpHvh5VG5GLtYYB5rnq8g7B0/kyx5n4ldB6GkLxzH9CPB0vxpMnZ
>
dVCS/+EUe/wkHrpRVNhMwP8XfG+8gv9upKg6H/u39XmpL2H2G4cKeot5xRiWRNqY
>
oJclAeIhDTL1bx/9e/VqvM91ESWpBLs+O8Mh9OzgfbN3gKR6BuoWHNwM9jSMDAT1
>
YzwdneSvAEFzgELMlae2QIzAUHno9qkHMkDVbdY3bBtSM9Xz4ditGgnq1D40ZZ+J
>
zx5WVY7HCebgbk7T35xgKzSKQSEG9zFNW5Dvq66Se3Zpc5vCPw7Q2xwjjPz3zdXQ
>
Lub0ohVWTzKr05tN1e/nu6keiY5cXRZ0w2MtHb19jtdWyoHEWWHanfOZjgbVSsuA
> saFCydA7O4E4BFxgtNze
> =JthX
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
- --
Thanks!
- -----
Justin M. Wray
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJV4fkUAAoJENo/Q5Xwcn834OIP/3A/tZGM0csz5QkJKW9jyyPN
yaewQ4CpP6N/y1g7YOXm4kwvCqofzbM++yeiBVN6pW+q7EyZr7vf6V8MYvRbhjAN
GxYxNWFAkSIcOFa3E92O4eGx7eG5Pn5bw0NWN2QHnmo8doPX/iwzOnv+l+yLQM5L
dcml0Bg2Gj2F5BLhS04XsgcqaZ+maUzmP27niVHYHF1qhSr2JmwWnHJ6u3Zp6Mb1
J7/tkm10p0PMNhnukMqrm9merC77mhBPQ40GXJSlIwXUNjZh6/7fbIP9hSUv4+HJ
K5IX+0gVAUlt2A6bTmswDDJLQGp/hnjKNMNsGIXy2/IZLRgmo3h83q+xZSAaDl9P
21QArg3Js5LIMwDZdOvhqcmfm5mShEa08UUo0rceGvg6YVQjPpHdPO9LjcUzoFoq
sD5UgCUuHCLwfk6AKS4L+NJU+Z9LyuQiLR5Of59Wn8Ri4viE2HecKWkZk8W9T1Ko
a1Juyg+7njFePrpQN7ck2twyrkhZo6vcRlo+VGaliCzMatl0aifEm1hrOlP/uEFj
B8vJP+kscbHagmUBDEZFcnlEKt46xEW6TxxXYkfGyyDJ7SyOzmKbtYJGkqAfWZLQ
93W6nHmnhjpVSrA1yWjka0gllt56izzMrG/5i7PlAQnocQhQGh0u/X7qdkrYezZH
5Fp416atfYdigXclXT00
=z9Sx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----