From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <jgarzik@gmail.com> Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46B65132A for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 04:09:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com [209.85.212.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60A47118 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 04:09:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicmc4 with SMTP id mc4so5989464wic.0 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 21:09:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=gaSZtRjKS4IIpzUW6RKRNBqtxyLl9U9PZwUAA4hWvtc=; b=REzUaLWgPjtawxzqVKqA+hU4iKd2vemoFUDA9DFH4SKGSTFWtS4BxNMfwUvjjwNqTZ 0/URVVvYgpk2h/FoXKZrT+ncg487RB7VJoIT3TYg1oRqfTge4tKJqbbe8DInv/4bu176 ddPrgcvzVqMA/nahETN+JAA07XPXah6KPWrGOrtdeTIvXKLMLEb5CxVhYm5lc/oCN0PZ FnmW7b6bmsX6pF07Pbt3PUjddjD1RTCkAS7XK0xa11OPS+5d3U7fJ/Zo1fKl3axM96tI 5QobbtMahqtEd1J8F8jIR8k5nbG57d9L1WxHbYQqjLx4WjfX+pRCVFd4wFbJYU/POtHw HniQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.176.201 with SMTP id ck9mr45961781wjc.108.1441253365085; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 21:09:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.15.11 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 21:09:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201509030017.43036.luke@dashjr.org> References: <CADm_WcZpOxLJdxENe=GXqrp17C-Q2karunOvzegGz-NQ2b_AEg@mail.gmail.com> <CADm_WcZEbAe_+VXxS1eMKQ1SM3KiJwVDS50-GtfUPw-Mdd5O2w@mail.gmail.com> <201509030017.43036.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 00:09:25 -0400 Message-ID: <CADm_WcawXU3b5g_kuUCKxHQ2YVRPmVh6g33qWDWqdw-X4tSE7Q@mail.gmail.com> From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com> To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d1eb4db7b14051ecff28e 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 Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 100 repo X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 04:09:27 -0000 --089e013d1eb4db7b14051ecff28e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Oh, and answering your question about the 1M: It is a safety rail. It can perform no worse on the low end than the current system. Eliminates unlikely scenarios that squeeze users. On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote: > On Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:58:54 PM Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > The repo: https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100 > > What is the purpose of the newly added 1 MB floor? It seems clear from the > current information available that 1 MB is presently too high for the > limit, > and it is entirely one-sided to only allow increases when decreases are > much > more likely to be needed in the short term. > > Must the new size limit votes use 11 bytes of coinbase? Why not just use a > numeric value pushed after height? Since this is a hardfork, I suggest > increasing the coinbase length to allow for 100 bytes *in addition* to the > pushed height and size-vote. > > I suggest combining 2 & 4 into a single rule lifting the 1 MB limit to 32 > MB > (or whatever value is deemed appropriate) to make it clear that the limit > remains a part of the consensus protocol and p2p protocol limits are not to > have an effect on consensus rules. > > Furthermore, I suggest modifying the voting to require 50% to set the limit > floor. This has the effect of merely coordinating what miners can already > effectively do today by rejecting blocks larger than some collusion- > determined limit. > > Thoughts? > > Luke > --089e013d1eb4db7b14051ecff28e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">Oh, and answering your question about the 1M: =C2=A0It is = a safety rail.=C2=A0 It can perform no worse on the low end than the curren= t system.=C2=A0 Eliminates unlikely scenarios that squeeze users.<div><br><= /div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed= , Sep 2, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Luke Dashjr <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mail= to:luke@dashjr.org" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>></span> wrote:= <br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-lef= t:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:58:5= 4 PM Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev<br> wrote:<br> > The repo: <a href=3D"https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100" rel=3D"norefer= rer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100</a><br> <br> What is the purpose of the newly added 1 MB floor? It seems clear from the<= br> current information available that 1 MB is presently too high for the limit= ,<br> and it is entirely one-sided to only allow increases when decreases are muc= h<br> more likely to be needed in the short term.<br> <br> Must the new size limit votes use 11 bytes of coinbase? Why not just use a<= br> numeric value pushed after height? Since this is a hardfork, I suggest<br> increasing the coinbase length to allow for 100 bytes *in addition* to the<= br> pushed height and size-vote.<br> <br> I suggest combining 2 & 4 into a single rule lifting the 1 MB limit to = 32 MB<br> (or whatever value is deemed appropriate) to make it clear that the limit<b= r> remains a part of the consensus protocol and p2p protocol limits are not to= <br> have an effect on consensus rules.<br> <br> Furthermore, I suggest modifying the voting to require 50% to set the limit= <br> floor. This has the effect of merely coordinating what miners can already<b= r> effectively do today by rejecting blocks larger than some collusion-<br> determined limit.<br> <br> Thoughts?<br> <span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br> Luke<br> </font></span></blockquote></div><br></div> --089e013d1eb4db7b14051ecff28e--