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 49371D1A for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 00:10:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (c.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.80]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BCB2CC for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 00:10:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.190] (63.135.62.197.nwinternet.com [63.135.62.197] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by c.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id tBS09vOt006415 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:09:58 -0800 From: Jonathan Toomim X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2CEEA70B-9442-4678-83AD-944401876158"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:10:36 -0800 Message-Id: To: Bitcoin Dev Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVaiKNvIpjN1KjPZe9u8lztAqr8k+Bo0kJimRWbSiwPi/o+4QLF++PgIalIHUroz1j4pgxcX+Upl8oeaPefdybs/ X-Sonic-ID: C;htFAVPes5RGG+/8vZz0oYQ== M;/PD1VPes5RGG+/8vZz0oYQ== X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 3.8/5.0 by cerberusd X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 06:12:40 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus census 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: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 00:10:03 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_2CEEA70B-9442-4678-83AD-944401876158 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2F67A28B-E02C-4A94-96CD-08E9FECF14AC" --Apple-Mail=_2F67A28B-E02C-4A94-96CD-08E9FECF14AC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I traveled around in China for a couple weeks after Hong Kong to visit = with miners and confer on the blocksize increase and block propagation = issues. I performed an informal survey of a few of the blocksize = increase proposals that I thought would be likely to have widespread = support. The results of the version 1.0 census are below. My brother is working on a website for a version 2.0 census. You can = view the beta version of it and participate in it at = https://bitcoin.consider.it. If you have any requests for changes to the = format, please CC him at m@toom.im. = https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Cg9Qo9Vl5PdJYD4EiHnIGMV3G48pWmcWI3= NFoKKfIzU/edit#gid=3D0 Or a snapshot for those behind the GFW without a VPN: http://toom.im/files/consensus_census.pdf HTML follows: Miner Hashrate BIP103 2 MB now (BIP102) 2 MB now, 4 MB = in 2 yr 2-4-8 (Adam Back) 3 MB now 3 MB now, 10 MB in 3 yr = BIP101 F2Pool 22% N/A Acceptable Acceptable Preferred = Acceptable Acceptable Too fast AntPool 23% Too slow Acceptable Acceptable = Acceptable N/A N/A Too fast Bitfury 18% N/A Acceptable Probably/maybe Maybe N/A = Probably too fast Too fast BTCC Pool 11% N/A Acceptable Acceptable = Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable, I think N/A KnCMiner 7% N/A Probably? Probably? "We like = 2-4-8" Probably? N/A N/A BW.com 7% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Slush 4% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 21 Inc. 3% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Eligius 1% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A BitClub 1% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A GHash.io 1% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A = N/A Misc 2% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Certainly in favor 74% 56% 63% 33% = 22% Possibly in favor 81% 81% 81% 40% = 33% 0% Total votes counted 81% 81% 81% 40% = 51% 63% F2Pool: Blocksize increase could be phased in at block 400,000. No = floating-point math. No timestamp-based forking (block height is okay). = Conversation was with Wang Chun via IRC. AntPool/Bitmain: We should get miners and devs together for few rounds = of voting to decide which plan to implement. (My brother is working on a = tool which may be useful for this. More info soon.) The blocksize = increase should be merged into Bitcoin Core, and should not be = implemented in an alternate client like BitcoinXT. A timeline of about 3 = months for the fork was discussed, though I don't know if that was = acceptable or preferable to Bitmain. Conversation was mostly with Micree = Zhan and Kevin Pan at the Bitmain HQ. Jihan Wu was absent. Bitfury: We should fix performance issues in bitcoind before 4 MB, and = we MUST fix performance issues before 8 MB. A plan that includes 8 MB = blocks in the future and assumes the performance fixes will be = implemented might be acceptable to us, but we'll have to evaluate it = more before coming to a conclusion. 2-4-8 "is like parachute basejumping = - if you jump, and was unable to fix parachute during the 90sec drop - = you will be 100% dead. plan A) [multiple hard forks] more safe." = Conversation was with Alex Petrov at the conference and via email. KnC: I only had short conversations with Sam Cole, but from what I can = tell, they would be okay with just about anything reasonable. BTCC: It would be much better to have the support of Core, but if Core = doesn't include a blocksize increase soon in the master branch, we may = be willing to start running a fork. Conversation was with Samson Mow and = a few others at BTCC HQ. The conversations I had with all of these entities were of an informal, = non-binding nature. Positions are subject to change. BIP100 was not = included in my talks because (a) coinbase voting already covers it = pretty well, and (b) it is more complicated than the other proposals and = currently does not seem likely to be implemented. I generally did not = bring up SegWit during the conversations I had with miners, and neither = did the miners, so it is also absent. (I thought that it was too early = for miners to have an informed opinion of SegWit's relative merits.) I = have not had any contact with BW.com or any of the smaller entities. = Questions can be directed to j@toom.im. --Apple-Mail=_2F67A28B-E02C-4A94-96CD-08E9FECF14AC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
I = traveled around in China for a couple weeks after Hong Kong to visit = with miners and confer on the blocksize increase and block propagation = issues. I performed an informal survey of a few of the blocksize = increase proposals that I thought would be likely to have widespread = support. The results of the version 1.0 census are = below. 

My brother is working on a website = for a version 2.0 census. You can view the beta version of it and = participate in it at https://bitcoin.consider.it. If = you have any requests for changes to the format, please CC him at m@toom.im.


<= /div>
Or a snapshot for those behind the GFW without a = VPN:

HTML = follows:

=
MinerHashrateBIP1032 MB now = (BIP102)2 MB = now, 4 MB in 2 yr2-4-8 (Adam = Back)3 MB now3 MB = now, 10 MB in 3 yrBIP101
F2Pool22%N/AAcceptableAcceptablePreferredAcceptableAcceptableToo = fast
AntPool23%Too slowAcceptableAcceptableAcceptableN/AN/AToo = fast
Bitfury18%N/AAcceptableProbably/maybeMaybeN/AProbably = too fastToo = fast
BTCC Pool11%N/AAcceptableAcceptableAcceptableAcceptableAcceptable, I thinkN/A
KnCMiner7%N/AProbably?Probably?"We like 2-4-8"Probably?N/AN/A
BW.com7%N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
Slush4%N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
21 Inc.3%N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
Eligius1%N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
BitClub1%N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
GHash.io1%N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
Misc2%N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
Certainly = in favor74%56%63%33%22%
Possibly in = favor81%81%81%40%33%0%
Total = votes counted81%81%81%40%51%63%
<= /td>
<= /td>
F2Pool: Blocksize increase = could be phased in at block 400,000. No floating-point math. No = timestamp-based forking (block height is okay). Conversation was with = Wang Chun via IRC.
<= /td>
AntPool/Bitmain: We should get miners and devs = together for few rounds of voting to decide which plan to implement. (My = brother is working on a tool which may be useful for this. More info = soon.) The blocksize increase should be merged into Bitcoin Core, and = should not be implemented in an alternate client like BitcoinXT. A = timeline of about 3 months for the fork was discussed, though I don't = know if that was acceptable or preferable to Bitmain. Conversation was = mostly with Micree Zhan and Kevin Pan at the Bitmain HQ. Jihan Wu was = absent.
<= /td>
Bitfury: We should fix performance issues in = bitcoind before 4 MB, and we MUST fix performance issues before 8 MB. A = plan that includes 8 MB blocks in the future and assumes the performance = fixes will be implemented might be acceptable to us, but we'll have to = evaluate it more before coming to a conclusion. 2-4-8 "is like parachute = basejumping - if you jump, and was unable to fix parachute during the = 90sec drop - you will be 100% dead. plan A) [multiple hard forks] more = safe." Conversation was with Alex Petrov at the conference and via = email.
<= /td>
KnC: I only had short conversations = with Sam Cole, but from what I can tell, they would be okay with just = about anything reasonable.
<= /td>
BTCC: It would be much better = to have the support of Core, but if Core doesn't include a blocksize = increase soon in the master branch, we may be willing to start running a = fork. Conversation was with Samson Mow and a few others at BTCC = HQ.
<= /td>
The = conversations I had with all of these entities were of an informal, = non-binding nature. Positions are subject to change. BIP100 was not = included in my talks because (a) coinbase voting already covers it = pretty well, and (b) it is more complicated than the other proposals and = currently does not seem likely to be implemented. I generally did not = bring up SegWit during the conversations I had with miners, and neither = did the miners, so it is also absent. (I thought that it was too early = for miners to have an informed opinion of SegWit's relative merits.) I = have not had any contact with BW.com or = any of the smaller entities. Questions can be directed to j@toom.im.
<= /td>

= --Apple-Mail=_2F67A28B-E02C-4A94-96CD-08E9FECF14AC-- --Apple-Mail=_2CEEA70B-9442-4678-83AD-944401876158 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWgH39AAoJEIEuMk4MG0P1aL0H/1bwU/aNdptpEZYJ3JQ2CJAe mmz8DARrsh4jbHfxoCkfIMvWEMTK7XWRcHOPMUvD/AeHhCYwBhW3OKpbN1c9GUDl nv3xNMhLLWY8tw7Hnq/vNiUoMOJ/+qLo5lazBBSAuK9Ejr2Mj57KRqpyDTrqCynh zEVdWH0x5hvUvpMm272LZOMsxfsykKkOW20rygR3nd/gK8+eHa1W6eK/+u8YbC9p Dxlqn/VxmcPI6NvA23xj0ynic/oEl5zY10axW5SGBO3MrYQ/CFyvA62SoQWNBEL4 /37k1zmIA2+0+f94nyj24hdKu5hZx1+DhvmjYg876OQd4Gez8fsP6I+D9bwLoJU= =mnKU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_2CEEA70B-9442-4678-83AD-944401876158--