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 C43A0E9F for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:40:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com (mail-wi0-f176.google.com [209.85.212.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24DA025B for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:40:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so22103781wic.1 for ; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 08:40:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=7PEbuwzJMwAnLrZdTbDzRzbBApRF5LXDBH2gm/uZdU0=; b=LqVouiZBtKpfGpD5lqL3RAuqt0J6cb0oQ1QhKuwhZ+my0o8FtCCveALvl1/SZZ/iba NGk1d8RHzNo6Y6JRuXbd4vw9QvRJOBGGkRmM7lbUhQsQzrYl82NxFqeHZyuW6i0HwDBm q6i9CBwdEytlb5sjp6/2lErqO/xeBno8EkZNFo8YLU04HevFiZLiye30rwaOB2ftriiQ pS0FJH/rNbp3rbdopSBZpowBjAK0W6s/x6vIvo74T/ahkjDF/mrMnYlTIngCj3faCuNl qhw+P/P0I3MOp+gK2rckG1xygfGhk7EfZIaVsSKFE+Ak1R6LtO+yf61mPmS7ivnvtCyr iS4Q== X-Received: by 10.194.191.164 with SMTP id gz4mr8521313wjc.21.1441381245863; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 08:40:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.211.16 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 08:40:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55E9BABD.7080505@bitcartel.com> References: <55E9BABD.7080505@bitcartel.com> From: Btc Drak Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:40:26 +0100 Message-ID: To: Simon Liu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM, 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] BIP 100 specification 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, 04 Sep 2015 15:40:47 -0000 If you read between the lines of what was recently changed and why (reducing to 2MB), it seems reasonable to assume BIP101's allowance opens up some of the attack vector again. On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Simon Liu via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Maybe grab some code from BIP101 ? It permits block messages > 2MB, > while retaining the current limit of 2 MB imposed on other network > messages. The 32 MB limit was patched a few months ago. > > Links to code: > > https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3in5mm/psa_correction_to_btcchina_letter_which_states/ > > > > On 09/04/2015 12:53 AM, Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> The 32Mb limit is >> here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/serialize.h#L25 >> >> It's to keep the message size small enough that messages can be >> serialized in memory. >> >> Jeff if you decide to lift the 32MB limit (you really should, unless >> your plan is to potentially hard force another Blocksize discussion >> again which might be okay). I suggest having the 32MB ceiling auto-raise >> according to a exponential factor (1.5?) starting 1 year from now. >> >> Basically hard limit ceiling 2016-2017: 32 MB >> Hard limit ceiling 2018+: 32*((currentYear-2018)*1.5) MB >> >> The factor could be 2 like BIP-101 but I imagine you will want to be >> more conservative. The delay time could also be longer if you think it >> will take longer to fix the message size issue across all implementations. >> > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev