From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <1240902@gmail.com> Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80E6895D for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:59:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f53.google.com (mail-vk0-f53.google.com [209.85.213.53]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 327BC1E2 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:59:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f53.google.com with SMTP id d188so95355631vka.0 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 09:59:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=dfo2D0Wblp337s2gs12AmPtqq4ocFw8oBDTFKtjc5ZQ=; b=jwDoYF1n4TV28UXJZafqnRIQ6hHbaM3VrmSCk5Axpx11Zuhzp2q3fZZrHeGxaP85Bn /oQV4OkhKyDrB3049iRZ2MpiuxFNCBsrFpOMRxUWl6QS3bwTKg/BrjZwzoIKM6tx+U7q yd0q7wHwCPBrS8xipIMb+PJHK4TALJbHFjxNs4u5NeVaGqHWnQgD3aJZuko14dPzUIlr km58qD5CUHO9iBJK4n2FA4RGq1evpnVNTky9jXA/apjFodDsshKhIr/bjoXcmVHXpofH hTg8+wiOKVxEnZ2OzhwL/2WWS9SevZOIw1u65+K9KUKQ0cToAjVZu4G7nths1quAghmq 77YA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=dfo2D0Wblp337s2gs12AmPtqq4ocFw8oBDTFKtjc5ZQ=; b=trrabKIodeW81c+mNzEsxc3/5E/1jBecSXOXcilB7plvTCu9Z6BGrHOsNyzkuwOJRT kMMedZNe5AeUtcYMeruOEVhipBRVG6jenpAztJlZH8UqxY2FYRsyQMwndV13ArXOAmPg KXs8uEJUmVI++3+eeEnOMeAKlncDYNK2Rz3aemKc+qOweRvMgz56Qry3MK71N9mACeCU qzHX9uoADfjDK6c3nxXTNgmdZbgxH/YNpJfVx85+qOQcXnaNgpvoe0JXChiL2OfddgMP alW+2jUIPQ/Mwk6otNrbUNDQJfHvP/wgbL9n+L8P2BzXt44UfBI/SQWoME5Pw4CCdX9S WXeA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0xH99+HWeQQ+m1D+z3LWVe9H8LtjgHJixW6jMF9WWTfTVCPkMkIBMIAN1ZlAb2uy4QVwYzKWl6TvAGYw== X-Received: by 10.31.65.17 with SMTP id o17mr10816304vka.33.1490720373150; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 09:59:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.83.71 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 09:59:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:59:32 +0800 Message-ID: To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:59:34 -0000 I've proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Consensus but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I would post this here again for comment. The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it. Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core. With this patch in core's next release, Bitcoin works just as before, no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three years. We don't yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core's release, they all become soft fork. We'll have enough time to discuss all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork. Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late.