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">&lt;<a href=3D"mail=
to:luke@dashjr.org" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>&gt;</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>
&gt; 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 &amp; 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--