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 634D7E37 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 19:52:21 +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 93B6BFC for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 19:52:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f53.google.com with SMTP id f2so32751034vkb.3 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:52:20 -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=QAmugJCM/kfOmm0yw1x1I6F99BVGYnr4Z4DNktddWf4=; b=Go2oZLb/aFVrXztL2SFu448YBrd7KrFWYxnVXERPsbjaijSIROMdTf67IAdmuzk1QX 8AD3f7Esv/RLsT1qcP0Bt7p7v4p0n7AGYZnLLTJPjBtynPhi+GYED7t3HTMyojrRGOtH gziywLTfmV0i1qVlcBe1aShUBPjmr28JeoKM4OH/s205KjtfvzGVysCXSOCtryZQauQo Xvp/F3mifBJt8fp+1XZs47uwPB3uHZxgRreYHDC034Z/fkG+WONrBXcIVu1KoMsfkNKK jbwPBnc6p4z3oO01NXPHQh/rR5Yaa3rP0NjiPli6Rt/ZyzN5aBP1qNsNcPC+aeHk43l8 girg== 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=QAmugJCM/kfOmm0yw1x1I6F99BVGYnr4Z4DNktddWf4=; b=ggGcSfDG9LBBlTvYemCrl62J68iXxThL8fYQetHXL45tUca1H1tjhX0Xcjn9jdmuhO mYMt2gEND7Om8Fnilbbm2KYSUVqoJd1yGPJhHEZI+mxIyPAip9SHEdnGPfFIDWPc0iGF 8RxbVR+SW7TSRLFtMJisvYOy/P65mkaAsiZWFzoIwCes/GHLSzTu5ur0nWa2LyfxeYWp Z9crLCpxfSBDX+nne6g/w/AzSyvriXTfsTQZV8Wj2CmQsYy6ynz5BXDeuUowWcLRS+op JnToH89lCoziKQtPli9Bg2u0hpdHrkPTQIRCNJUuNrloZQ+FAtzpGfwzl39E0UuEoYz3 /cDQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlqrA8RNsk+b6VaBMVIF5qb4ntv2F1BDmXu6YXcZp6E1fhYJE/vV8G3oSOsTd9HHsGWMJqYzKY7SVyxO1rIkNMusDfJIw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.163.17 with SMTP id m17mr3526999vke.46.1450468339595; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:52:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.236.70 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:52:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.236.70 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:52:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:52:19 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11415d2423d0740527317a40 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 19:52:21 -0000 --001a11415d2423d0740527317a40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 confirmation 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 block (ie block.nHeight % DifficultyAdjustmentInterval == 0). Actually I would always have an initial height in bip9, for softforks too. 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 recovery 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 > --001a11415d2423d0740527317a40 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I agree that nHeight is the simplest option and is my prefer= ence.
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'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).
Actually I would always have an initial height in bip9, for softforks too.<= br> I would also use the sign bit as the "hardfork bit" 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).
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't seem to follow bip99&= #39;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 bit= coin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
In many BIPs we have seen, include the la= test 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/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--001a11415d2423d0740527317a40--