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 B6353899 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:45:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f49.google.com (mail-vk0-f49.google.com [209.85.213.49]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED191AF for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:45:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f49.google.com with SMTP id z204so9744898vkd.1 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 01:45:15 -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=CVKnSUjiAFmrcxBgiMA/o3FHmvRVLjG1SKEGohoPAuA=; b=Z7KycD7wThKKR1zCHT57kRfsgjkNsspZ4OUu9HfRfTB1lO+r+4HVDhNhuXdicMcp07 h9BqsOsGVmkmFG91cAGr9aApxguzao1nEM8fwMHR8T6iDw4OE00LwhG8o3YfblC/3s07 727dPem98bwkmm4+THSnXc0JezmmQW5fJ41Ul2dYc8dgy3yhtBQRCQkVOfrK0eWwH7Tj 4OsEu8189P1wu0V1bBoxK7EgxYTs27eH8n6bfjdHnlYMrScB6V6UuxHonEBkc4IHWxqI gOIqg0YBWKFS49tWrAASdPH8NpjbzoOKWdjCePXkJycuNoIU6NmWxqvI6DIgDzXUrhPJ IKog== 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=CVKnSUjiAFmrcxBgiMA/o3FHmvRVLjG1SKEGohoPAuA=; b=btA/6ztEsDAGGTAqXA5qXDkPmvgWRB2niF7U/v1en6wnEIAimc61+Th44msxq2HLYc 6CESeGON8AWwLTQxQDmVeRu19PMIKbhSpnTciTbL5MOXy3SzHeOgZTb1+RD+nnYgOTeh XSQl70npNiJRDx5D65bRwglgCefA4JpnOJQs36VoRANsF5lS3Tn0RuhbCjctV7BOeAxC qSJxaFdfx8IwOJM9iuLMHMwUEGffhu/YNJ5zkEkLiEbBvkIF8XuW0gFTLHV7l47R0auF BC7QScvfAenow8kryQWDJ2Sd7lrpvrBMqd71f0YMbxDugIXEvLCJ9z89DH1NicYdZ6Xy clIg== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1/aImjYhugbkV1VJ2ndButVsCMmM3ts/L88ii24acxMVTfzvJPRMrfbPfrJRylmyNZdCritz2///4KBQ== X-Received: by 10.176.69.161 with SMTP id u30mr3576214uau.69.1490777115026; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 01:45:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.157.143 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 01:45:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6d7e8bb9-ef08-70bb-1609-66b063e500f1@mattcorallo.com> References: <6d7e8bb9-ef08-70bb-1609-66b063e500f1@mattcorallo.com> From: Jared Lee Richardson Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 01:45:14 -0700 Message-ID: To: Matt Corallo , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c11c960616e90054bda98d1 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 13:47:52 +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 08:45:16 -0000 --94eb2c11c960616e90054bda98d1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > That said, for that to be alleviated we could simply do something based on historical transaction growth (which is somewhat linear, with a few inflection points), Where do you get this? Transaction growth for the last 4 years averages to +65% per year and the last 2 is +80% per year. That's very much not linear. On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Not sure what "last week's meeting" is in reference to? > > Agreed that the hard fork should be well-prepared, but I think its > dangerous to think that a hard fork as agreed upon would be a simple > relaxation of the block size. For example, Johnson Lau's previous > proposal, Spoonnet, which I think is probably one of the better ones, > would be incompatible with these rules. > > I, of course, worry about what happens if we cannot come to consensus on > a number to soft fork down to, potentially significantly risking miner > profits (and, thus, the security of Bitcoin) if a group is able to keep > things "at the status quo". That said, for that to be alleviated we > could simply do something based on historical transaction growth (which > is somewhat linear, with a few inflection points), but that number ends > up being super low (eg somewhere around 2MB at the next halving, which > SegWit itself already provides :/. > > We could, of course, focus on designing a hard fork's activation and > technical details, with a very large block size increase in it (ie > closer to 4/6MB at the next halving or so, something we at least could > be confident we could develop software for), with intention to soft fork > it back down if miner profits are suffering. > > Matt > > On 03/28/17 16:59, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev 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 > --94eb2c11c960616e90054bda98d1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=C2=A0That said, for = that to be alleviated we
could simply do something based on historical transac= tion growth (which
is somewhat linear, with a few inflection points),

Whe= re do you get this?=C2=A0 Transaction growth for the last 4 years averages = to +65% per year and the last 2 is +80% per year.=C2=A0 That's very muc= h not linear.



On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Matt Corallo via bit= coin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>= ; wrote:
Not sure what "last = week's meeting" is in reference to?

Agreed that the hard fork should be well-prepared, but I think its
dangerous to think that a hard fork as agreed upon would be a simple
relaxation of the block size. For example, Johnson Lau's previous
proposal, Spoonnet, which I think is probably one of the better ones,
would be incompatible with these rules.

I, of course, worry about what happens if we cannot come to consensus on a number to soft fork down to, potentially significantly risking miner
profits (and, thus, the security of Bitcoin) if a group is able to keep
things "at the status quo". That said, for that to be alleviated = we
could simply do something based on historical transaction growth (which
is somewhat linear, with a few inflection points), but that number ends
up being super low (eg somewhere around 2MB at the next halving, which
SegWit itself already provides :/.

We could, of course, focus on designing a hard fork's activation and technical details, with a very large block size increase in it (ie
closer to 4/6MB at the next halving or so, something we at least could
be confident we could develop software for), with intention to soft fork it back down if miner profits are suffering.

Matt

On 03/28/17 16:59, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I've proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Conse= nsus
> but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than<= br> > one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I wo= uld
> post this here again for comment.
>
> The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should<= br> > be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.
>
> Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its<= br> > 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<= br> > 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 befo= re,
> 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<= br> > 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 disc= uss
> 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.<= br> > _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@l= ists.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

--94eb2c11c960616e90054bda98d1--