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 E1FC4B61 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:10:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f51.google.com (mail-vk0-f51.google.com [209.85.213.51]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 491AB131 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:10:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f51.google.com with SMTP id s68so29496063vke.3 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:10:44 -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; bh=ZNXLD4cqCQXM6c16eUW3BxtP6+Z2MTPZ9yDE8vpp9iQ=; b=jOVJTSosDqK42gWVm80vVPe0cLpCGIsO1OEuco0uz59veVUNxy9slCJUl1wMSNiPOB mbjdJC9FRD5ibVT3Z0XGsxe490+8n/QBpUK6GdExTuj7jRiKZiatdiOqXRpeRKs4yrjh NiyML7sH0AXhcWvf9oKUt1QJ0VbAyOCsN8+hjIVqCvagX3Ket28+XMVgSjb2O4vLTmh3 6TA6wS/YV7OETS3+qO8MdeggmkADX/JzHNjZbUVSOb5mKS1wUGdZcbtOarc84CUIc3Am qoSTCY9uhIqm/JszXSjAdv1hNO44DF68bZTdiUVcUthgMTH3MZCxo8P8QhkO+1um/IXv 2qzw== 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; bh=ZNXLD4cqCQXM6c16eUW3BxtP6+Z2MTPZ9yDE8vpp9iQ=; b=uKjNzuBohUmqUiXhM9oxU0Ywy439Zzearwp9Vyif0hAxtSLBG/HUUEM2tXmvztyxkL VkN+qIpQ20miACBxvuZE6fZL1G0hXsNFiQ54mUfE6py8JHK84N/EpGuHxxqOow+/yNub VEdBfgH3LIU+rdYfYu9scjWRXw2ij6YhniFITFfRKoxb4nTyjBOoJjmHdNiYwjHv32nn y85TiOf5ccYUOxmxEnzboGhgh85EwXUvH/JeA2NTB94aiK3qAfPg9c081SSMPfpqlFPY Xcup4wEBlR4F8YgWQ3rM7ATcO75cgfBjMkkwawXrzRSchM2XEyJtL8yMOc/JpzrRbQBM FotA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H34zimPqX1WAjM47iaDD80T6mj91W+wGEP5t4OZpLWTLL0UU+leI3R1IgVJ9haE1lWGQYbz8QLF3NuITw== X-Received: by 10.31.47.213 with SMTP id v204mr1091084vkv.2.1490814643422; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:10:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.157.143 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:10:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jared Lee Richardson Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:10:42 -0700 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_L=C3=ADzner?= , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143f0423f4d0a054be35587 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:13:39 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting 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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:10:45 -0000 --001a1143f0423f4d0a054be35587 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In order for any blocksize increase to be agreed upon, more consensus is needed. The proportion of users believing no blocksize increases are needed is larger than the hardfork target core wants(95% consensus). The proportion of users believing in microtransactions for all is also larger than 5%, and both of those groups may be larger than 10% respectively. I don't think either the Big-blocks faction nor the low-node-costs faction have even a simple majority of support. Getting consensus is going to be a big mess, but it is critical that it is done. On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Martin L=C3=ADzner via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > If there should be a hard-fork, Core team should author the code. Other > dev teams have marginal support among all BTC users. > > Im tending to believe, that HF is necessary evil now. But lets do it in > conservative approach: > - Fix historical BTC issues, improve code > - Plan HF activation date well ahead - 12 months+ > - Allow increasing block size on year-year basis as Luke suggested > - Compromise with miners on initial block size bump (e.g. 2MB) > - SegWit > > Martin Lizner > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> I've proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Consensus >> but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than >> one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I would >> post this here again for comment. >> >> The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should >> be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it. >> >> Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its >> limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to >> remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in >> the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block >> halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is >> the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be >> in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core. >> >> With this patch in core's next release, Bitcoin works just as before, >> no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there >> will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and >> exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three >> years. >> >> We don't yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size >> limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like >> BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so >> on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core's >> release, they all become soft fork. We'll have enough time to discuss >> all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we >> choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it >> from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork. >> >> Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > --001a1143f0423f4d0a054be35587 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In order for any blocksize increase to be agreed upon, mor= e consensus is needed.=C2=A0 The proportion of users believing no blocksize= increases are needed is larger than the hardfork target core wants(95% con= sensus).=C2=A0 The proportion of users believing in microtransactions for a= ll is also larger than 5%, and both of those groups may be larger than 10% = respectively.=C2=A0 I don't think either the Big-blocks faction nor the= low-node-costs faction have even a simple majority of support.=C2=A0 Getti= ng consensus is going to be a big mess, but it is critical that it is done.=

On Wed, Mar= 29, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Martin L=C3=ADzner via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
If there should be a hard-fork, Co= re team should author the code. Other dev teams have marginal support among= all BTC users.

Im tending to believe, that HF is necess= ary evil now. But lets do it in conservative approach:
- Fix hist= orical BTC issues, improve code
- Plan HF activation date well ah= ead - 12 months+
- Allow increasing block size on year-year basis= as Luke suggested
- Compromise with miners on initial block size= bump (e.g. 2MB)
- SegWit

Martin Lizner<= /div>

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Wang Chu= n via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat= ion.org> wrote:
I've pr= oposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Consensus
but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than
one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I would post this here again for comment.

The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should
be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.

Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its
limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to
remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in
the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block
halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is
the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be
in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.

With this patch in core's next release, Bitcoin works just as before, no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there
will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and
exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three
years.

We don't yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size
limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like
BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so
on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core's
release, they all become soft fork. We'll have enough time to discuss all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we
choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it
from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork.

Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late.
_______________________________________________
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


--001a1143f0423f4d0a054be35587--