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 C2FB26C for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 18:04:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f176.google.com (mail-ua0-f176.google.com [209.85.217.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 612DAFD for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 18:04:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f176.google.com with SMTP id v2so130764106uac.2 for ; Mon, 02 Jan 2017 10:04:39 -0800 (PST) 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=oQtjuGwMxs4oSjTnjA+LVfy21vQVs1IEoAQfDpNPx0M=; b=MvmFmRw0VRJi3AGqG6TJSNGp1kjzlMPvqfC12Avyj/98uMu8sBJs1UQP6Tw4b+dafa cy4QAOYzIm+yDcBFah9PB+18obZ/xX0JaNTv2TP7pruP+Hb7Ewf5i4tSA2iOs/Xh5ScN qswkfjLLqKA446XyCRtk5yzE9hCsOcVP2+0tRd1McvsmhQsHoPgll8Xg+Y658LxJzy99 G0HB4mufPBqQrZRj0kS53SC2EYGj0LxNC668MRYANQxSCVSGlbp+Z2ETdxT7Fv9PR5+I gMUCerkEiHTkMDS468TkhsAmMa9pcsXNMMz9x8t2K258JRVU8rHgEYusCHG1P/HDaW4S o5oA== 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=oQtjuGwMxs4oSjTnjA+LVfy21vQVs1IEoAQfDpNPx0M=; b=R051ydwAF7tM++9Xu1ZQzUpND/bwD6DHQ62YEQ/aW9RuBMElvS9IE3UQ829kj5Hjph 3/cbZSP55j95karpPsJc0jze8ilP3xT2nLpJmToEsxy8h6hxcnnobfUwnuRhKPj25wA2 3mcslHdyUO0fYEHj2HAhZMH8gegGejwRZ4N1jGlGN0g0uO4nT/DTBR3IPNakhXwWUyK2 c2z+ynlOwHcqBtcywPAid6ZPhxOVZf5fR7xDtGwJDdqJQRwrsEPfypLzxFxePT59aK3H Q5Ltbn14rzPO56Z/QT5zYGy7yBnBpXQ1mVzs9/cWAbqBVAx78hYNaBPWNfYcwJehfmJe 9lTA== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJcAVTLXYvR87G/h+2y3wpbtsxsikdc8/guss3KJ3Bf8YnDso2eV1aafZfHN4ByO3tu4TE2Ipqoqws8tQ== X-Received: by 10.159.48.203 with SMTP id k11mr41915644uab.42.1483380278310; Mon, 02 Jan 2017 10:04:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.49.144 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 10:04:37 -0800 (PST) From: "t. khan" Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 13:04:37 -0500 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045e34f48e3bb0054520627f 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, HTML_MESSAGE, 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] BIP - 'Block75' - New algorithm 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: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 18:04:39 -0000 --f403045e34f48e3bb0054520627f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Based on feedback from this list and further simulations, here is a new algorithm for Block75: new max blocksize = x + (x * (AVERAGE_CAPACITY - TARGET_CAPACITY) TARGET_CAPACITY = 0.75 AVERAGE_CAPACITY = average percentage full of the last 2016 blocks, as a decimal x = current max block size Please note that this algorithm actually tries to keep blocks 75% full, unlike the old one that unnecessarily capped growth at 250KB. While this would theoretically allow a maximum increase of 25% over the previous max block size, in practice it's not possible to get that high. This would be calculated every 2016 blocks along with difficulty. Block75 should maintain transaction fees at about the level they were in May/June 2016 when blocks started hitting 75% full somewhat consistently. Thoughts? For any predictions as to how this would behave, please provide the numbers used to arrive at any conclusions. Other questions: 1. How do we make Block75 play nice with SegWit? 2. Is there any need for a minimum max blocksize? Block75 allows for decreasing the size as well as increasing it. Activation: To help negate some of the risk associated with a hard fork and to prevent a single relatively small mining pool from blocking Block75's adoption, activation would occur once 900 of the last 1,000 blocks mined signaled support, with a grace period of 4,032 blocks. Thank you again to all those who commented on the previous Block75 thread. Together, we can make 2017 the year the block size debate ends (hopefully forever). Happy New Year! - t.k. --f403045e34f48e3bb0054520627f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Based on feedback from this list and further simulati= ons, here is a new algorithm for Block75:

new max block= size =3D x + (x * (AVERAGE_CAPACITY - TARGET_CAPACITY)

<= div>TARGET_CAPACITY =3D 0.75
AVERAGE_CAPACITY =3D average percent= age full of the last 2016 blocks, as a decimal
x =3D current max = block size

Please note that this algorithm actuall= y tries to keep blocks 75% full, unlike the old one that unnecessarily capp= ed growth at 250KB. While this would theoretically allow a maximum increase= of 25% over the previous max block size, in practice it's not possible= to get that high.

This would be calculated every = 2016 blocks along with difficulty.

Block75 should = maintain transaction fees at about the level they were in May/June 2016 whe= n blocks started hitting 75% full somewhat consistently.

Thoughts? For any predictions as to how this would behave, please pr= ovide the numbers used to arrive at any conclusions.

Other questions:
1. How do we make Block75 play nice with SegW= it?
2. Is there any need for a minimum max blocksize? Block75= allows for decreasing the size as well as increasing it.
<= br>
Activation:
To help negate some of the risk associa= ted with a hard fork and to prevent a single relatively small mining pool f= rom blocking Block75's adoption, activation would occur once 900 of the= last 1,000 blocks mined signaled support, with a grace period of 4,032 blo= cks.

Thank you again to all those who commented on= the previous Block75 thread. Together, we can make 2017 the year the block= size debate ends (hopefully forever).

Happy New Y= ear!

- t.k.
--f403045e34f48e3bb0054520627f--