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 BD1D0481 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:12:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FF1D1F7 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:12:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so25222640wib.1 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 08:12:19 -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:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/Lzeb8/HeANtyUyBoNph4U7cnXJ2g3LjmWS5NnJ7IyY=; b=W220nMIgNpgUzpPhCdawlx1ggAlv2QF9jLt7V/26z+OSDtocWSeE6wfX5hbu6dMB82 M81qMm91yRqovMIWhcuIWrkgAz25FqqEzshr55eojtMyRh+zTN71ZrTMw0we1TKPWzPI plc7m01y6r0LIPDrg5L9oE2c9DG20xB2vwdiik4QyjLvkxQtg+8Ge36sDRPJll8y/Qup HNdKUhWzxeaD7df4H1cpwmtg2uXfbPFw2UXhTpJxv0VnNbm4HzQsm4u6BJY/YTJus0Te TH7ymJLIfMf+6TuoKT5QGUDq7ngmEfZKidx//TuFsY4wuNiyN4RSb+fEgcfm1nP3He2Z Oz4w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQme4aCjeSczfCZl+qfRQjYmroopqvxYSkXqKw+XEt+pGMxeNg16naTlirlLN+zNRwlmpVNP MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.37.74 with SMTP id w10mr6938485wij.92.1438269139497; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 08:12:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 08:12:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 17:12:19 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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] Block size following technological growth 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: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:12:21 -0000 1) Unlike previous blocksize hardfork proposals, this uses median time instead of block.nTime for activation. I like that more but my preference is still using height for everything. But that discussion is not specific to this proposal, so it's better if we discuss that for all of them here: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009731.htm= l 2) I think uncontroversial hardforks should also take miner confirmation into account, just like uncontroversial softforks do. We cannot make sure other users have upgraded before activating the chain, but we can know whether miners have upgraded or not. Having that tool available, why not use it. Of course other hardforks may not care about miners' upgrade state. For example "anti-miner hardforks, see https://github.com/jtimon/bips/blob/bip-forks/bip-forks.org#asic-reset-= hardfork But again, this is common to all uncontroversial hardforks, so it would probably better to discussed it in http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008936.htm= l (gmaxwell assigned to bip99 to my bip draft). 3) As commented to you privately, I don't like to make any assumptions about technological advancements (much less on economical growth). I don't expect many people to agree with me here (I guess I've seen too many "peak oil" [or more generally, peak energy production] plus I've read Nietzsche's "On the utility and liability of history for life" [1]; so considering morals, technology or economics as "monotonic functions" in history is simply a ridiculous notion to me), but it's undeniable that internet connections have improved overall around the world in the last 6 years. I think we should wait for the technological improvements to happen and then adapt the blocksize accordingly. I know, that's not a "definitive solution", we will need to change it from time to time and this is somewhat ugly. But even if I'm the only one that considers a "technological de-growth" possible, I don't think is wise to rely on pseudo-laws like Moore's or Nielsen=E2=80=99s so-called "laws". Stealing a quote from another thread: "Prediction is difficult, especially about the future." - Niels Bohr So I would prefer a more limited solution like bip102 (even though I would prefer to have some simulations leading to a concrete value (even if it's bigger) rather than using 2MB's arbitrary number. Those are my 3 cents. [1] https://philohist.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/nietzsche-uses-history.pd= f On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hello all, > > here is a proposal for long-term scalability I've been working on: > https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6 > > Some things are not included yet, such as a testnet whose size runs ahead= of > the main chain, and the inclusion of Gavin's more accurate sigop checking > after the hard fork. > > Comments? > > -- > Pieter > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >