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 2AC6994D for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:50:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com (mail-ob0-f174.google.com [209.85.214.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35355109 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:50:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbnk6 with SMTP id nk6so69408460obb.2 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 01:50:47 -0800 (PST) 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=5xvsIlHuDvN6N5wi5u96dGONgcM5jxC2fxIQ8K0mV1w=; b=es/momWY3e/6nGWv06bsQh/4B7OjV+bgUiwC2X2Ygr3QlybMC7SgXcST9Mx/9I0CYr gkxHmfk1nAMewo4wUjbdZb+C2/rpdyUFDGXmqk1+bcUM6EtDpsuactxmqSHZCQdHdSFY A0XrbAzP4A9Q3o+FjbHZHRM1Y4AltRehxvtBsU5WNfRKc5F6YYhpxSsqOXKBNrGfwtqa ub/UeayokgvTw5qe7vJk7N5GZgD9LPCf/NvtSD63keKoEFk89t0Kci0wm9d/f7fxkZZx 6wXwuFMk1UNkEVpcBAZGILs+8RrIzKMKAmZ4iXVsLc/R9luprtjtlpbXTsbGK932dELf tmzg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.81.136 with SMTP id a8mr11885361oby.76.1447408247552; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 01:50:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.48.20 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 01:50:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:50:47 -0500 Message-ID: From: John Sacco To: Btc Drak , Luke Dashjr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e402670c052052468fe3f 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 Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Block size doubles at each reward halving with max block size of 32M 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, 13 Nov 2015 09:50:49 -0000 --047d7b2e402670c052052468fe3f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Revised spec below to put us back at 2 MB at next halving in 2016 (addressing Luke & Drak's points). This is more in line with intent of the original proposal and provides sufficient time to gain consensus. Specification > > > * 2 MB, height 420,000 < 630,000; (fork active when 75% of last 1,000 blocks signal support and block 420,000 reached, ~July 2016) * 4 MB, height 630,000 < 840,000; (year ~2020) * 8 MB, height 840,000 < 1,050,000; (year ~2024) * 16 MB, height 1,050,000 < 1,260,000; (year ~2028) * 32 MB, height >= 1,260,000. (year ~2032) On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Btc Drak wrote: > > * 2 MB, height 210,000 < 420,000; (when 75% of last 1,000 blocks signal > support) > > This doesnt give anyone a chance to upgrade and would cause a hard fork > the moment a miner created a >1MB block. Flag day (hard fork) upgrades must > start the change at a sufficient time in the future (greater than the > current block height) to give all nodes the chance to upgrade. > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 3:37 AM, John Sacco via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> I like your suggestion for the continuity and it gets us up to 2 MB in >> the shorter term. Also I just noticed the math error. >> >> Here is a revised spec (incorporating suggestions from Chun Wang): >> >> Specification >> >> * 1 MB, height < 210,000; >> * 2 MB, height 210,000 < 420,000; (when 75% of last 1,000 blocks signal >> support) >> * 4 MB, height 420,000 < 630,000; (year 2016) >> * 8 MB, height 630,000 < 840,000; (year ~2020) >> * 16 MB, height 840,000 < 1,050,000; (year ~2024) >> * 32 MB, height >= 1,050,000. (year ~2028) >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> How about these specs: >>> * 1 MB, height < 210000; >>> * 2 MB, 210000 <= height < 420000; >>> * 4 MB, 420000 <= height < 630000; >>> * 8 MB, 630000 <= height < 840000; >>> * 16 MB, 840000 <= height < 1050000; >>> * 32 MB, height >= 1050000. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:47 AM, John Sacco via bitcoin-dev >>> wrote: >>> > Hi Devs, >>> > >>> > >>> > Please consider the draft proposal below for peer review. >>> > >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > >>> > >>> > John >>> > >>> > >>> > BIP >>> > >>> > BIP: ? >>> > >>> > Title: Block size doubles at each reward halving with max block size >>> of >>> > 32M >>> > >>> > Author: John Sacco >>> > >>> > Status: Draft >>> > >>> > Type: Standards Track >>> > >>> > Created: 2015-11-11 >>> > >>> > Abstract >>> > >>> > Change max block size to 2MB at next block subsidy halving, and double >>> the >>> > block size at each subsidy halving until reaching 32MB. >>> > >>> > Copyright >>> > >>> > This proposal belongs in the public domain. Anyone can use this text >>> for any >>> > purpose with proper attribution to the author. >>> > >>> > Motivation >>> > >>> > 1. Gradually restores block size to the default 32 MB setting >>> originally >>> > implemented by Satoshi. >>> > >>> > 2. Initial increase to 2MB at block halving in July 2016 would have >>> > minimal impact to existing nodes running on most hardware and networks. >>> > >>> > 3. Long term solution that does not make enthusiastic assumptions >>> > regarding future bandwidth and storage availability estimates. >>> > >>> > 4. Maximum block size of 32MB allows peak usage of ~100 tx/sec by >>> year >>> > 2031. >>> > >>> > 5. Exercise network upgrade procedure during subsidy reward >>> halving, a >>> > milestone event with the goal of increasing awareness among miners and >>> node >>> > operators. >>> > >>> > Specification >>> > >>> > 1. Increase the maximum block size to 2MB when block 630,000 is >>> reached >>> > and 75% of the last 1,000 blocks have signaled support. >>> > >>> > 2. Increase maximum block size to 4MB at block 840,000. >>> > >>> > 3. Increase maximum block size to 8MB at block 1,050,000. >>> > >>> > 4. Increase maximum block size to 16MB at block 1,260,000. >>> > >>> > 5. Increase maximum block size to 32MB at block 1,470,000. >>> > >>> > Backward compatibility >>> > >>> > All older clients are not compatible with this change. The first block >>> > larger than 1M will create a network partition excluding not-upgraded >>> > network nodes and miners. >>> > >>> > Rationale >>> > >>> > While more comprehensive solutions are developed, an increase to the >>> block >>> > size is needed to continue network growth. A longer term solution is >>> needed >>> > to prevent complications associated with additional hard forks. It >>> should >>> > also increase at a gradual rate that retains and allows a large >>> distribution >>> > of full nodes. Scheduling this hard fork to occur no earlier than the >>> > subsidy halving in 2016 has the goal of simplifying the communication >>> > outreach needed to achieve consensus, while also providing a buffer of >>> time >>> > to make necessary preparations. >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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 >> >> > --047d7b2e402670c052052468fe3f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Revised spec below to put = us back at 2 MB at next halving in 2016 (addressing Luke & Drak's p= oints). This is more in line with intent of the original proposal and provi= des sufficient time to gain consensus.=C2=A0

=

Specification


* 2 MB, height 420,000 < 630,000; (fork active when 75% of last 1,000 blocks signal support and block 420,000 reach= ed, ~July 2016)


* 4 MB, height 630,000 < 840,000; (year ~2020)


* 8 MB, height 840,000 < 1,050,000; (year ~2024)


* 16 MB, height 1,050,000 < 1,260,000; (year ~2028)


* 32 MB, height >=3D 1,260,000. (year ~2032)




On Fr= i, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com> wro= te:
> * 2 MB, height 210,000 < 420,000; (when 75% of last 1,000 bloc= ks signal support)

This doesnt give anyo= ne a chance to upgrade and would cause a hard fork the moment a miner creat= ed a >1MB block. Flag day (hard fork) upgrades must start the change at = a sufficient time in the future (greater than the current block height) to = give all nodes the chance to upgrade.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 a= t 3:37 AM, John Sacco via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lis= ts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
I like your suggestion for the continuity and it gets us up to 2 M= B in the shorter term. Also I just noticed the math error.=C2=A0

Here is a revised spec (incorporating suggestions from Chun Wang):=

Specification

* 1 MB, height < 210,000;
* 2 MB, heig= ht 210,000 < 420,000; (when 75% of last 1,000 blocks signal support)
* 4 MB, height 420,000 < 630,000; (year 20= 16)
* 8 MB, height 630,000 < 840,000; (= year ~2020)
* 16 MB, height 840,000 < 1= ,050,000; (year ~2024)
* 32 MB, height >= ;=3D 1,050,000. (year ~2028)


=

On Thu, Nov = 12, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> wrote:
How about these specs:
* 1 MB, height < 210000;
* 2 MB, 210000 <=3D height < 420000;
* 4 MB, 420000 <=3D height < 630000;
* 8 MB, 630000 <=3D height < 840000;
* 16 MB, 840000 <=3D height < 1050000;
* 32 MB, height >=3D 1050000.


On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:47 AM, John Sacco via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi Devs,
>
>
> Please consider the draft proposal below for peer review.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> John
>
>
> BIP
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0BIP: ?
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0Title: Block size doubles at each reward halving with max = block size of
> 32M
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0Author: John Sacco <johnsock@gmail.com>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0Status: Draft
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0Type: Standards Track
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0Created: 2015-11-11
>
> Abstract
>
> Change max block size to 2MB at next block subsidy halving, and double= the
> block size at each subsidy halving until reaching 32MB.
>
> Copyright
>
> This proposal belongs in the public domain. Anyone can use this text f= or any
> purpose with proper attribution to the author.
>
> Motivation
>
> 1.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Gradually restores block size to the default 32 MB set= ting originally
> implemented by Satoshi.
>
> 2.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Initial increase to 2MB at block halving in July 2016 = would have
> minimal impact to existing nodes running on most hardware and networks= .
>
> 3.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Long term solution that does not make enthusiastic ass= umptions
> regarding future bandwidth and storage availability estimates.
>
> 4.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Maximum block size of 32MB allows peak usage of ~100 t= x/sec by year
> 2031.
>
> 5.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Exercise network upgrade procedure during subsidy rewa= rd halving, a
> milestone event with the goal of increasing awareness among miners and= node
> operators.
>
> Specification
>
> 1.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Increase the maximum block size to 2MB when block 630,= 000 is reached
> and 75% of the last 1,000 blocks have signaled support.
>
> 2.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Increase maximum block size to 4MB at block 840,000. >
> 3.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Increase maximum block size to 8MB at block 1,050,000.=
>
> 4.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Increase maximum block size to 16MB at block 1,260,000= .
>
> 5.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Increase maximum block size to 32MB at block 1,470,000= .
>
> Backward compatibility
>
> All older clients are not compatible with this change. The first block=
> larger than 1M will create a network partition excluding not-upgraded<= br> > network nodes and miners.
>
> Rationale
>
> While more comprehensive solutions are developed, an increase to the b= lock
> size is needed to continue network growth. A longer term solution is n= eeded
> to prevent complications associated with additional hard forks. It sho= uld
> also increase at a gradual rate that retains and allows a large distri= bution
> of full nodes.=C2=A0 Scheduling this hard fork to occur no earlier tha= n the
> subsidy halving in 2016 has the goal of simplifying the communication<= br> > outreach needed to achieve consensus, while also providing a buffer of= time
> to make necessary preparations.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev



--047d7b2e402670c052052468fe3f--