From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YyOqd-0001d3-Oh for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 29 May 2015 18:17:35 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YyOqc-0003cR-9t for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 29 May 2015 18:17:35 +0000 Received: by wicmx19 with SMTP id mx19so25436490wic.0 for ; Fri, 29 May 2015 11:17:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4fyQ1RsbhGx9Fp1gP0mJ6OcbfbBQ0/E+clr6o2724bQ=; b=ihwyoMFZCAmG8PY3JHjdAkg8YF+EMhM8pzcEpS3ouhpUT80FhCOgg+A5HkKlj4uJXy oWZ1+9VYJS25pndKbgzakAMObfgiQUEcwMGgPjeudf4RXGeThOIxN0kfJkyg0YneeiV2 1YsDeZLWnN5kfVlxurIe5JVuaLeMk+WmnyFrWsVr2ecNsONJ09utOhFl2xf4rVmG81yf mTZxSBPPUQgx6yRVDgGo8alnc+L0zjDGhbLQu5kx8uUCg51VHixhptuZWmqGI1eFc7Pd B53lEnhyP3l9HMDwmFJq4O3PDIQP7qSTRX3sXCHu1FtW2Pyovyfwia1HzQZvwwLHavKk DYow== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkCI7fsVya9/3Osg+gvTfEHWGVw4/4cSr4J+BWRDwDMLq94czNGuy+nlZyJT8uIqVE37XNe MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.7.169 with SMTP id k9mr8849263wia.84.1432922036114; Fri, 29 May 2015 10:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Sender: admin@ajaltech.com Received: by 10.194.40.137 with HTTP; Fri, 29 May 2015 10:53:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [100.32.141.26] In-Reply-To: References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator> Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 10:53:55 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: nAlxi26P7oZtUMum_jQZYoGiBBs Message-ID: From: Admin Istrator To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d041825aef425eb05173c28ef X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.4 NO_DNS_FOR_FROM DNS: Envelope sender has no MX or A DNS records 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1YyOqc-0003cR-9t Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 18:17:35 -0000 --f46d041825aef425eb05173c28ef Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 What about trying the dynamic scaling method within the 20MB range + 1 year with a 40% increase of that cap? Until a way to dynamically scale is found, the cap will only continue to be an issue. With 20 MB + 40% yoy, we're either imposing an arbitrary cap later, or achieving less than great DOS protection always. Why not set that policy as a maximum for 2 years as a protection against the possibility of dynamic scaling abuse, and see what happens with a dynamic method in the mean time. The policy of Max(1MB, (average size over previous 144 blocks) * 2) calculated at each block seems pretty reasonable. As an outsider, the real 'median' here seems to be 'keeping the cap as small as possible while allowing for larger blocks still'. We know miners will want to keep space in their blocks relatively scarce, but we also know that doesn't exclude the more powerful miners from including superfluous transactions to increase their effective share of the network. I have the luck of not being drained by this topic over the past three years, so it looks to me as if its two poles of 'block size must increase' and 'block size must not increase' are forcing what is the clear route to establishing the 'right' block size off the table. --Andrew Len (sorry if anybody received this twice, sent as the wrong email the first time around). On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > What do other people think? > > > If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help > reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement a > big increase now that grows over time so we may never have to go through > all this rancor and debate again. > > I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges and > hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure companies > (and anybody who agrees with me that we need bigger blocks sooner rather > than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core, and state that they > are running it. We'll be able to see uptake on the network by monitoring > client versions. > > Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consensus bigger blocks are > needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The early deployment will > just serve as early testing, and all of the software already deployed will > ready for bigger blocks. > > But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger blocks > now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to do the > same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (hopefully) > get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger blocks. > The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they'd better > start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them > a chance to upgrade before that happens. > > > Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for > determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges > and miners are running. > > > -- > -- > Gavin Andresen > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --f46d041825aef425eb05173c28ef Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What about tr= ying the dynamic scaling method within the 20MB range + 1 year with a 40% i= ncrease of that cap?=C2=A0 Until a way to dynamically scale is found, the c= ap will only continue to be an issue.=C2=A0 With 20 MB + 40% yoy, we're= either imposing an arbitrary cap later, or achieving less than great DOS p= rotection always.=C2=A0 Why not set that policy as a maximum for 2 years as= a protection against the possibility of dynamic scaling abuse, and see wha= t happens with a dynamic method in the mean time.=C2=A0 The policy of Max(1= MB, (average size over previous 144 blocks) * 2) calculated at each block s= eems pretty reasonable. =C2=A0

As an outsider, the real 'median' here seems to b= e 'keeping the cap as small as possible while allowing for larger block= s still'. =C2=A0 =C2=A0We know miners will want to keep space in their = blocks relatively scarce, but we also know that doesn't exclude the mor= e powerful miners from including=C2=A0superfluous=C2=A0transactions to incr= ease their effective share of the network.=C2=A0 I have the luck of not bei= ng drained by this topic over the past three years,=C2=A0so it looks to me = as if its two poles of 'block size must increase' and 'block si= ze must not increase' are forcing what is the clear route to establishi= ng the 'right' block size off the table.=C2=A0

--Andr= ew Len
(sorry if anybody received this twice, sent as the wrong email t= he first time around).

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Gavin Andresen = <gavinandre= sen@gmail.com> wrote:
What do other people think?


I= f we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help review= ing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement a bi= g increase now that grows over time so we may never have to go through all = this rancor and debate again.

I'll then ask fo= r help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges and hosted wallet compa= nies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure companies (and anybody who agr= ees with me that we need bigger blocks sooner rather than later) to run Bit= coin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core, and state that they are running it. We'= ;ll be able to see uptake on the network by monitoring client versions.

Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consen= sus bigger blocks are needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The ea= rly deployment will just serve as early testing, and all of the software al= ready deployed will ready for bigger blocks.

But i= f there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger blocks = now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners = to do the same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (ho= pefully) get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger= blocks. The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they&= #39;d better start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, = and to give them a chance to upgrade before that happens.


Because if we can't come to consensus here, the = ultimate authority for determining consensus is what code the majority of m= erchants and exchanges and miners are running.
=


=
--
--
Gavin Andresen

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------

_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment


--f46d041825aef425eb05173c28ef--