From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YycgC-0007o1-F6 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 30 May 2015 09:03:44 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.182; envelope-from=voisine@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk0-f182.google.com; Received: from mail-qk0-f182.google.com ([209.85.220.182]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YycgA-0005U2-Il for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 30 May 2015 09:03:44 +0000 Received: by qkhg32 with SMTP id g32so58248940qkh.0 for ; Sat, 30 May 2015 02:03:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.216.135 with SMTP id m129mr15082990qhb.20.1432976617114; Sat, 30 May 2015 02:03:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.91.37 with HTTP; Sat, 30 May 2015 02:03:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator> Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 02:03:36 -0700 Message-ID: From: Aaron Voisine To: Admin Istrator Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135d24a3c0f70051748de91 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (voisine[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1YycgA-0005U2-Il 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: Sat, 30 May 2015 09:03:44 -0000 --001a1135d24a3c0f70051748de91 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > or achieving less than great DOS protection Right now a bunch of redditors can DOS the network at the cost of a few thousand dollars per day, shared between them. Since the cost of validating transactions is far lower than current minimum relay fees, then increasing the block size increases the cost of DOSing the network. Aaron Voisine co-founder and CEO breadwallet.com On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Admin Istrator wrote: > 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 >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --001a1135d24a3c0f70051748de91 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=C2=A0or achieving less= than great DOS protection=C2=A0
=
Right now a bunch of redditors can DOS the network at= the cost of a few thousand dollars per day, shared between them. Since the= cost of validating transactions is far lower than current minimum relay fe= es, then increasing the block size increases the cost of DOSing the=C2=A0ne= twork.


Aar= on Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Admin Istr= ator <andy@ftlio.com> wrote:
=
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 Andr= esen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
What = do other people think?


If we can't co= me to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help reviewing/submitting pa= tches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement a big increase now th= at grows over time so we may never have to go through all this rancor and d= ebate again.

I'll then ask for help lobbying t= he merchant services and exchanges and hosted wallet companies and other bi= tcoind-using-infrastructure companies (and anybody who agrees with me that = we need bigger blocks sooner rather than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead o= f Bitcoin Core, and state that they are running it. We'll be able to se= e 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 wi= ll just serve as early testing, and all of the software already deployed wi= ll ready for bigger blocks.

But if there is still = no consensus among developers but the "bigger blocks now" movemen= t is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to do the same, a= nd use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (hopefully) get a ma= jority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger blocks. The purp= ose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they'd better star= t 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 authorit= y for determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exch= anges and miners are running.


--
--
Gavin Andr= esen

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

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



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

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


--001a1135d24a3c0f70051748de91--