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 EC5751386 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:32:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3484C256 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:32:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so91696522wic.0 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:32:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=89KhZSy3zJpLo5J8P44BCFSwN306tv39QbBrb+UbIXQ=; b=TYNq1BRLyOaoSaqELu7EzlJRC5M6ZZNauPpugfeORL5lfWFYRMw4/RrUzYdvRO2AE7 jFuKrKFTeuvCXq9+2xO/5C1hwivp+G3S6pOgCLrvFKk95dFw920dOlHGE8S6ZtNCGx6L uzo2ioLtrwwh79hAfsARXw/L0z7YAeDEKemWEXVP6mHXzImqBvIMAi4rjSWOIbYl0B23 Og/yWZzJpSldYuACoVhueikN2tFfHgf8wzQm7/wwYOEHaBaLWyG+Yam0ESj7El4kYrcH 9E3deEbRyj5rCcHyzu3xB7RfFxptjjkfJH7vvkRC7ayub/9RnvRICepLO529HgQPmgN6 3oGA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.87.1 with SMTP id t1mr627579wiz.33.1442439124713; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.158.9 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:32:04 -0400 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: Bitcoin development mailing list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044481afa38664051fe407f3 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report 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: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:32:07 -0000 --f46d044481afa38664051fe407f3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 During Scaling Bitcoin, Bitcoin Core committers and notable contributors got together and chatted about where a "greatest common denominator" type consensus might be. The following is a without-attribution (Chatham House) summary. This is my own personal summary of the chat; any errors are my own; this is _not_ a consensus statement or anything formal. - Background (pre-conference, was on public IRC): "net-utxo", calculating transaction size within block by applying a delta to transaction size based on the amount of data added, or removed, from the UTXO set. Fee is then evaluated after the delta is applied. This aligns user incentives with UTXO resource usage/cost. Original idea by gmaxwell (and others??). - Many interested or at least willing to accept a "short term bump", a hard fork to modify block size limit regime to be cost-based via "net-utxo" rather than a simple static hard limit. 2-4-8 and 17%/year were debated and seemed "in range" with what might work as a short term bump - net after applying the new cost metric. - Hard fork method: Leaning towards "if (timestamp > X)" flag day hard fork Y months in the future. Set high bit in version, resulting in a negative number, to more cleanly fork away. "miner advisement" - miners, as they've done recently, signal non-binding (Bitcoin Core does not examine the value) engineering readiness for a hard fork via coinbase moniker. Some fork cancellation method is useful, if unsuccessful after Z time elapses. - As discussed publicly elsewhere, other forks may be signaled via setting a bit in version, and then triggering a fork'ing change once a threshold is reached. Chat participants are invited to reply to this message with their own corrections and comments and summary in their view. For the wider community, take this as one of many "inputs" described at Scaling Bitcoin. Over the next few months developers and the community should evaluate everything discussed and work towards some concrete proposal(s) that are implemented, tested and simulated in December in Hong Kong. --f46d044481afa38664051fe407f3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

During Scaling Bitcoin, Bitcoin Core c= ommitters and notable contributors got together and chatted about where a &= quot;greatest common denominator" type consensus might be.=C2=A0 The f= ollowing is a without-attribution (Chatham House) summary.=C2=A0 This is my= own personal summary of the chat; any errors are my own; this is _not_ a c= onsensus statement or anything formal.

- Background (pre-conference, was on public IR= C): "net-utxo", calculating transaction size within block by appl= ying a delta to transaction size based on the amount of data added, or remo= ved, from the UTXO set.=C2=A0 Fee is then evaluated after the delta is appl= ied.=C2=A0 This aligns user incentives with UTXO resource usage/cost.=C2=A0= Original idea by gmaxwell (and others??).

- Many inter= ested or at least willing to accept a "short term bump", a hard f= ork to modify block size limit regime to be cost-based via "net-utxo&q= uot; rather than a simple static hard limit. =C2=A02-4-8 and 17%/year were = debated and seemed "in range" with what might work as a short ter= m bump - net after applying the new cost metric.

- Hard= fork method: =C2=A0Leaning towards "if (timestamp > X)" flag = day hard fork Y months in the future.=C2=A0 Set high bit in version, result= ing in a negative number, to more cleanly fork away. =C2=A0"miner advi= sement" - miners, as they've done recently, signal non-binding (Bi= tcoin Core does not examine the value) engineering readiness for a hard for= k via coinbase moniker.=C2=A0 Some fork cancellation method is useful, if u= nsuccessful after Z time elapses.

- As discussed public= ly elsewhere, other forks may be signaled via setting a bit in version, and= then triggering a fork'ing change once a threshold is reached.<= br>

Chat participa= nts are invited to reply to this message with their own corrections and com= ments and summary in their view.

For the wider com= munity, take this as one of many "inputs" described at Scaling Bi= tcoin.=C2=A0 Over the next few months developers and the community should e= valuate everything discussed and work towards some concrete proposal(s) tha= t are implemented, tested and simulated in December in Hong Kong.






--f46d044481afa38664051fe407f3--