From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 662D0D01
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:10:04 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f53.google.com (mail-vk0-f53.google.com
	[209.85.213.53])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42FE9108
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:10:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f53.google.com with SMTP id j66so71694161vkg.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:10:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type;
	bh=XMLg+mFoatkDpTGTOcZ7c2YHhIKwPGUXdi8XdtHkiL8=;
	b=BKkaeiPKqXWY2tqptpcocjHKFJ0iB/j36ZpKBwzpt0JEYpfJH3Nmu9ymhK0UnMkNfw
	o4mt6pXWBM3h45S/hRyk8p18xBjC2EFPpDCZd72FxAY8g3i35AKPDDhmg8qr7pkJDTjv
	w6VhqCJPFnfVWxg+NHfQbvyl4ZJYiArdD+xu4MXpyXdROI4u7aZWNUEqT2Dpu93mmORO
	lwUPVPQg5+H1GBDHE/jLFTczcvres2qiZo6Lson9THtugtTTWMo915/JjzyfBssd/B2O
	+KR42IwVODxBvC5hv/2fD57CCBLuhhr8TtoXP2ejNbHK3YsTcodbcDqAji5c9faltjDH
	OCnw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=XMLg+mFoatkDpTGTOcZ7c2YHhIKwPGUXdi8XdtHkiL8=;
	b=mnX7t2u3nFNewQbdcoHJtyEw0dmKooWIi0k+3mLQBq65M1jPsKvPOgwqlUsT0+73JU
	r3VUpCp0qGIahvey0hgy1AsPZNDitbCL41dF9OKVFR8IWvVaKgcLPG8ff3TiQmW5150Z
	E7E6LfAThqCSmyDeCgailotnYHy6NwOX2sdB8NNsKya42+l8JZBuvbmNWFpBg2TshAp4
	WtvoWVtwQdElIqdH8S6gCAVpYPthVhezhcdWKEZdzE/UDLTRlWjSpB83SAsZPd315Ihi
	3fQpVtlwwimyF0tzMPotAe+rQz4FsZWNr7FI/ACMuAjsFpHUvL2aMXmSntcNaho6DNdg
	ydvA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmk+sTtKEw60Iud9wi02GApoPKhlEI+j4u8rW2rr0SeLW5x9j4GOZ3hs7nVeuN7tjlaZc22uI5r0WZUFRhWBcWdeTccGg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.16.226 with SMTP id 95mr3421442vkq.143.1450469402502;
	Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:10:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.236.70 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:10:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.236.70 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:10:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcYFmvu+_OXjm53DHV_q2m8z7Q9zd7QaTrs-uqfiK62CAQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFzgq-xNZmWrdwCDv3twdsqSWk-FyMuLYJjZ_bA42_5Po0mgEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDqJgPM1KRRSR3wSEhQ77Oq6P_VVvHwc3Yt4qnkAr7d2nA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcYFmvu+_OXjm53DHV_q2m8z7Q9zd7QaTrs-uqfiK62CAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 21:10:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CABm2gDoyzLErwA0g624A2aPUqSi3gXTgcmC7TTTUNDKyecDpuA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114339407eb52d052731b91f
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The increase of max block size should be
 determined by block height instead of block time
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:10:04 -0000

--001a114339407eb52d052731b91f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Well, if it's not going to be height, I think median time of the previous
block is better than the time of the current one, and would also solve Chun
Wang's concerns.
But as said I prefer to use heights that correspond to diff recalculation
(because that's the window that bip9 will use for the later 95%
confirmation anyway).
On Dec 18, 2015 9:02 PM, "Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik@gmail.com> wrote:

> From a code standpoint, based off height is easy.
>
> My first internal version triggered on block 406,800 (~May 5), and each
> block increased by 20 bytes thereafter.
>
> It was changed to time, because time was the standard used in years past
> for other changes; MTP flag day is more stable than block height.
>
> It is preferred to have a single flag trigger (height or time), rather
> than the more complex trigger-on-time, increment-on-height, but any
> combination of those will work.
>
> Easy to change code back to height-based...
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> I agree that nHeight is the simplest option and is my preference.
>> Another option is to use the median time from the previous block (thus
>> you know whether or not the next block should start the miner confirmati=
on
>> or not). In fact, if we're going to use bip9  for 95% miner upgrade
>> confirmation, it would be nice to always pick a difficulty retarget bloc=
k
>> (ie block.nHeight % DifficultyAdjustmentInterval =3D=3D 0).
>> Actually I would always have an initial height in bip9, for softforks to=
o.
>> I would also use the sign bit as the "hardfork bit" that gets activated
>> for the next diff interval after 95% is reached and a hardfork becomes
>> active (that way even SPV nodes will notice when a softfork  or hardfork
>> happens and also be able to tell which one is it).
>> I should update bip99 with all this. And if the 2 mb bump is
>> uncontroversial, maybe I can add that to the timewarp fix and th recover=
y
>> of the other 2 bits in block.nVersion (given that bip102 doesn't seem to
>> follow bip99's recommendations and doesn't want to give 6 full months as
>> the pre activation grace period).
>> On Dec 18, 2015 8:17 PM, "Chun Wang via bitcoin-dev" <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> In many BIPs we have seen, include the latest BIP202, it is the block
>>> time that determine the max block size. From from pool's point of
>>> view, it cannot issue a job with a fixed ntime due to the existence of
>>> ntime roll. It is hard to issue a job with the max block size unknown.
>>> For developers, it is also easier to implement if max block size is a
>>> function of block height instead of time. Block height is also much
>>> more simple and elegant than time.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>

--001a114339407eb52d052731b91f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr">Well, if it&#39;s not going to be height, I think median tim=
e of the previous block is better than the time of the current one, and wou=
ld also solve Chun Wang&#39;s concerns.<br>
But as said I prefer to use heights that correspond to diff recalculation (=
because that&#39;s the window that bip9 will use for the later 95% confirma=
tion anyway).</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Dec 18, 2015 9:02 PM, &quot;Jeff Garzik&quot;=
 &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jgarzik@gmail.com">jgarzik@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<=
br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Fro=
m a code standpoint, based off height is easy.<div><br></div><div>My first =
internal version triggered on block 406,800 (~May 5), and each block increa=
sed by 20 bytes thereafter.</div><div><br></div><div>It was changed to time=
, because time was the standard used in years past for other changes; MTP f=
lag day is more stable than block height.</div><div><br></div><div>It is pr=
eferred to have a single flag trigger (height or time), rather than the mor=
e complex trigger-on-time, increment-on-height, but any combination of thos=
e will work.</div><div><br></div><div>Easy to change code back to height-ba=
sed...</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">=
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Jorge Tim=
=C3=B3n <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoun=
dation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;=
</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .=
8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">I agree tha=
t nHeight is the simplest option and is my preference.<br>
Another option is to use the median time from the previous block (thus you =
know whether or not the next block should start the miner confirmation or n=
ot). In fact, if we&#39;re going to use bip9=C2=A0 for 95% miner upgrade co=
nfirmation, it would be nice to always pick a difficulty retarget block (ie=
 block.nHeight % DifficultyAdjustmentInterval =3D=3D 0).<br>
Actually I would always have an initial height in bip9, for softforks too.<=
br>
I would also use the sign bit as the &quot;hardfork bit&quot; that gets act=
ivated for the next diff interval after 95% is reached and a hardfork becom=
es active (that way even SPV nodes will notice when a softfork=C2=A0 or har=
dfork happens and also be able to tell which one is it).<br>
I should update bip99 with all this. And if the 2 mb bump is uncontroversia=
l, maybe I can add that to the timewarp fix and th recovery of the other 2 =
bits in block.nVersion (given that bip102 doesn&#39;t seem to follow bip99&=
#39;s recommendations and doesn&#39;t want to give 6 full months as the pre=
 activation grace period).</p><div><div>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Dec 18, 2015 8:17 PM, &quot;Chun Wang via bit=
coin-dev&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"=
 target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br =
type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 =
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">In many BIPs we have se=
en, include the latest BIP202, it is the block<br>
time that determine the max block size. From from pool&#39;s point of<br>
view, it cannot issue a job with a fixed ntime due to the existence of<br>
ntime roll. It is hard to issue a job with the max block size unknown.<br>
For developers, it is also easier to implement if max block size is a<br>
function of block height instead of time. Block height is also much<br>
more simple and elegant than time.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div>

--001a114339407eb52d052731b91f--