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 2C099C59 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 20:10:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f42.google.com (mail-lf0-f42.google.com [209.85.215.42]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE37213B for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 20:10:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f42.google.com with SMTP id m18so55066785lfj.0 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 13:10:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4/IBBex3kr6mncY09RIwBXPwA3VuSxmY1Fd+Xs0Qpb0=; b=S9KEustOljuZUoxqrtWh41N9zRJ4BhKizTDo9sf5tH24O5QIJXWJHmhyZHLXaWisaL iXY96gv66//Yv9/MdYwZ8WIDC0uVMJQcJbVLfHUcvpdSO+7JXWdaRlC5TZF6eFny6vgV oh3F/X1aEfKwakrcN9YOgs5fFX1mPALl3kehN56zml5UHN+GHImxb/We7DkOwIJNS8VV IB+ITpeeScINTXR76S67VkvJ0IHq2CwCQBWZw42msjO1IBy+WNXz7Ae7mJINGyHmHmRP o1TBjKkW1rUv/bzYkVGxEbRE1xBPf4Ae1fKcHZU/qMEstDps+25OVhkj9qbvJjEyIRNL KLuw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4/IBBex3kr6mncY09RIwBXPwA3VuSxmY1Fd+Xs0Qpb0=; b=trfIpGsnZaavic1F0artMY4U4dtw4kcymLPXNUvnIpwG7rpE+VNBXfy71NnGvbMHDU fme9WHbKqqNO51Xkihvm0rsDHCe0tcCAYyRsLUMZzI3TAoNkwN4HJMgBqXBl7ilK4vmb ipPPicg4E3yJU4g1IiOaItjtYIFUggClwLObkc+RDsz2CrMWm3f1hLUiW97DVJddSbp3 1MASzwSDKo52yX9wOBQpiebjP3aGUUplRrzTtSAstIYvk7OIsjNHkwOChIue8tdNw7ez 9ZCraqet6a5sf0Ffu3qcche7JbrLfriamJ3MT672nLM8dwIDvcPU9Kp+v9cjJuq+eYRw kmkw== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDx40so8Pvla/cdNGKUM5C820Q1seoZF2ti685gi4ysoW+oP3DZ x5Hs2haOyyIMe3mZnoRyMG9wlkrwbg== X-Received: by 10.46.8.18 with SMTP id 18mr6686619lji.90.1496175005350; Tue, 30 May 2017 13:10:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.80.4 with HTTP; Tue, 30 May 2017 13:10:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.80.4 with HTTP; Tue, 30 May 2017 13:10:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201705232023.40588.luke@dashjr.org> From: Jacob Eliosoff Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:10:04 -0400 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045ec282b741fa0550c36352" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 30 May 2017 20:23:05 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hypothetical 2 MB hardfork to follow BIP148 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 20:10:08 -0000 --f403045ec282b741fa0550c36352 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'd like to know this too. Is it just that a 4MB blockmaxweight would theoretically allow ~4MB blocks (if ~all witness data), which is too big? Or is there a more subtle reason we still need blockmaxsize after a HF? On May 30, 2017 9:28 AM, "Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: Why not simply remove the (redundant after sw activation) 1 mb size limit check and increasing the weight limit without changing the discount or having 2 limits? On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Personally, I would prefer if a 2MB lock-in that uses BIP103 for the timing. > > I think up to 20% per year can be absorbed by averages in bandwidth/CPU/RAM > growth, of which bandwidth seems the most constraining. > > - Erik > > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> >> In light of some recent discussions, I wrote up this BIP for a real 2 MB >> block >> size hardfork following Segwit BIP148 activation. This is not part of an= y >> agreement I am party to, nor anything of that sort. Just something to >> throw >> out there as a possible (and realistic) option. >> >> Note that I cannot recommend this to be adopted, since frankly 1 MB blocks >> really are still too large, and this blunt-style hardfork quite risky even >> with consensus. But if the community wishes to adopt (by unanimous >> consensus) >> a 2 MB block size hardfork, this is probably the best way to do it right >> now. >> The only possible way to improve on this IMO would be to integrate it into >> MMHF/"spoonnet" style hardfork (and/or add other unrelated-to-block-size >> HF >> improvements). >> >> I have left Author blank, as I do not intend to personally champion this= . >> Before it may be assigned a BIP number, someone else will need to step u= p >> to >> take on that role. Motivation and Rationale are blank because I do not >> personally think there is any legitimate rationale for such a hardfork a= t >> this >> time; if someone adopts this BIP, they should complete these sections. (= I >> can >> push a git branch with the BIP text if someone wants to fork it.) >> >> 
>> BIP: ?
>> Layer: Consensus (hard fork)
>> Title: Post-segwit 2 MB block size hardfork
>> Author: FIXME
>> Comments-Summary: No comments yet.
>> Comments-URI: ?
>> Status: Draft
>> Type: Standards Track
>> Created: 2017-05-22
>> License: BSD-2-Clause
>>
>> >> =3D=3DAbstract=3D=3D >> >> Legacy Bitcoin transactions are given the witness discount, and a block >> size >> limit of 2 MB is imposed. >> >> =3D=3DCopyright=3D=3D >> >> This BIP is licensed under the BSD 2-clause license. >> >> =3D=3DSpecification=3D=3D >> >> Upon activation, a block size limit of 2000000 bytes is enforced. >> The block weight limit remains at 4000000 WU. >> >> The calculation of block weight is modified: >> all witness data, including both scriptSig (used by pre-segwit inputs) and >> segwit witness data, is measured as 1 weight-unit (WU), while all other >> data >> in the block is measured as 4 WU. >> >> The witness commitment in the generation transaction is no longer >> required, >> and instead the txid merkle root in the block header is replaced with a >> hash >> of: >> >> 1. The witness reserved value. >> 2. The witness merkle root hash. >> 3. The transaction ID merkle root hash. >> >> The maximum size of a transaction stripped of witness data is limited to 1 >> MB. >> >> =3D=3D=3DDeployment=3D=3D=3D >> >> This BIP is deployed by flag day, in the block where the median-past tim= e >> surpasses 1543503872 (2018 Nov 29 at 15:04:32 UTC). >> >> It is assumed that when this flag day has been reached, Segwit has been >> activated via BIP141 and/or BIP148. >> >> =3D=3DMotivation=3D=3D >> >> FIXME >> >> =3D=3DRationale=3D=3D >> >> FIXME >> >> =3D=3DBackwards compatibility=3D=3D >> >> This is a hardfork, and as such not backward compatible. >> It should not be deployed without consent of the entire Bitcoin community. >> Activation is scheduled for 18 months from the creation date of this BIP= , >> intended to give 6 months to establish consensus, and 12 months for >> deployment. >> >> =3D=3DReference implementation=3D=3D >> >> FIXME >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --f403045ec282b741fa0550c36352 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'd like to know this too.=C2=A0 Is it just that= a 4MB blockmaxweight would theoretically allow ~4MB blocks (if ~all witnes= s data), which is too big?=C2=A0 Or is there a more subtle reason we still = need blockmaxsize after a HF?


On May 30, 2017 9:28 A= M, "Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org= > wrote:
Why not simply= remove the (redundant after sw activation) 1 mb size
limit check and increasing the weight limit without changing the
discount or having 2 limits?


On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Personally, I would prefer if a 2MB lock-in that uses BIP103 for the t= iming.
>
> I think up to 20% per year can be absorbed by averages in bandwidth/CP= U/RAM
> growth, of which bandwidth seems the most constraining.
>
> - Erik
>
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-d= ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> In light of some recent discussions, I wrote up this BIP for a rea= l 2 MB
>> block
>> size hardfork following Segwit BIP148 activation. This is not part= of any
>> agreement I am party to, nor anything of that sort. Just something= to
>> throw
>> out there as a possible (and realistic) option.
>>
>> Note that I cannot recommend this to be adopted, since frankly 1 M= B blocks
>> really are still too large, and this blunt-style hardfork quite ri= sky even
>> with consensus. But if the community wishes to adopt (by unanimous=
>> consensus)
>> a 2 MB block size hardfork, this is probably the best way to do it= right
>> now.
>> The only possible way to improve on this IMO would be to integrate= it into
>> MMHF/"spoonnet" style hardfork (and/or add other unrelat= ed-to-block-size
>> HF
>> improvements).
>>
>> I have left Author blank, as I do not intend to personally champio= n this.
>> Before it may be assigned a BIP number, someone else will need to = step up
>> to
>> take on that role. Motivation and Rationale are blank because I do= not
>> personally think there is any legitimate rationale for such a hard= fork at
>> this
>> time; if someone adopts this BIP, they should complete these secti= ons. (I
>> can
>> push a git branch with the BIP text if someone wants to fork it.)<= br> >>
>> <pre>
>> BIP: ?
>> Layer: Consensus (hard fork)
>> Title: Post-segwit 2 MB block size hardfork
>> Author: FIXME
>> Comments-Summary: No comments yet.
>> Comments-URI: ?
>> Status: Draft
>> Type: Standards Track
>> Created: 2017-05-22
>> License: BSD-2-Clause
>> </pre>
>>
>> =3D=3DAbstract=3D=3D
>>
>> Legacy Bitcoin transactions are given the witness discount, and a = block
>> size
>> limit of 2 MB is imposed.
>>
>> =3D=3DCopyright=3D=3D
>>
>> This BIP is licensed under the BSD 2-clause license.
>>
>> =3D=3DSpecification=3D=3D
>>
>> Upon activation, a block size limit of 2000000 bytes is enforced.<= br> >> The block weight limit remains at 4000000 WU.
>>
>> The calculation of block weight is modified:
>> all witness data, including both scriptSig (used by pre-segwit inp= uts) and
>> segwit witness data, is measured as 1 weight-unit (WU), while all = other
>> data
>> in the block is measured as 4 WU.
>>
>> The witness commitment in the generation transaction is no longer<= br> >> required,
>> and instead the txid merkle root in the block header is replaced w= ith a
>> hash
>> of:
>>
>> 1. The witness reserved value.
>> 2. The witness merkle root hash.
>> 3. The transaction ID merkle root hash.
>>
>> The maximum size of a transaction stripped of witness data is limi= ted to 1
>> MB.
>>
>> =3D=3D=3DDeployment=3D=3D=3D
>>
>> This BIP is deployed by flag day, in the block where the median-pa= st time
>> surpasses 1543503872 (2018 Nov 29 at 15:04:32 UTC).
>>
>> It is assumed that when this flag day has been reached, Segwit has= been
>> activated via BIP141 and/or BIP148.
>>
>> =3D=3DMotivation=3D=3D
>>
>> FIXME
>>
>> =3D=3DRationale=3D=3D
>>
>> FIXME
>>
>> =3D=3DBackwards compatibility=3D=3D
>>
>> This is a hardfork, and as such not backward compatible.
>> It should not be deployed without consent of the entire Bitcoin co= mmunity.
>> Activation is scheduled for 18 months from the creation date of th= is BIP,
>> intended to give 6 months to establish consensus, and 12 months fo= r
>> deployment.
>>
>> =3D=3DReference implementation=3D=3D
>>
>> FIXME
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-d= ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation= .org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--f403045ec282b741fa0550c36352--