Send Bitcoin-development mailing list submissions to
        bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
        bitcoin-development-owner@lists.sourceforge.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Bitcoin-development digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Block Size Increase (Mark Friedenbach)
   2. Softfork signaling improvements (Douglas Roark)
   3. Re: Block Size Increase (Mark Friedenbach)
   4. Re: Block Size Increase (Raystonn) (Damian Gomez)
   5. Re: Block Size Increase (Raystonn)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
To: Raystonn <raystonn@hotmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 13:55:30 -0700
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase

The problems with that are larger than time being unreliable. It is no longer reorg-safe as transactions can expire in the course of a reorg and any transaction built on the now expired transaction is invalidated.

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Raystonn <raystonn@hotmail.com> wrote:

Replace by fee is what I was referencing.  End-users interpret the old transaction as expired.  Hence the nomenclature.  An alternative is a new feature that operates in the reverse of time lock, expiring a transaction after a specific time.  But time is a bit unreliable in the blockchain

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Douglas Roark <doug@bitcoinarmory.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Cc: 
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 15:27:26 -0400
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Softfork signaling improvements
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hello. I've seen Greg make a couple of posts online
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1033396.msg11155302#msg11155302
is one such example) where he has mentioned that Pieter has a new
proposal for allowing multiple softforks to be deployed at the same
time. As discussed in the thread I linked, the idea seems simple
enough. Still, I'm curious if the actual proposal has been posted
anywhere. I spent a few minutes searching the usual suspects (this
mailing list, Reddit, Bitcointalk, IRC logs, BIPs) and can't find
anything.

Thanks.

- ---
Douglas Roark
Senior Developer
Armory Technologies, Inc.
doug@bitcoinarmory.com
PGP key ID: 92ADC0D7
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=ayhE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
To: "Raystonn ." <raystonn@hotmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 13:40:50 -0700
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase

Transactions don't expire. But if the wallet is online, it can periodically choose to release an already created transaction with a higher fee. This requires replace-by-fee to be sufficiently deployed, however.

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Raystonn . <raystonn@hotmail.com> wrote:

I have a proposal for wallets such as yours.  How about creating all transactions with an expiration time starting with a low fee, then replacing with new transactions that have a higher fee as time passes.  Users can pick the fee curve they desire based on the transaction priority they want to advertise to the network.  Users set the priority in the wallet, and the wallet software translates it to a specific fee curve used in the series of expiring transactions.  In this manner, transactions are never left hanging for days, and probably not even for hours.

-Raystonn

On 8 May 2015 1:17 pm, Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com> wrote:

As the author of a popular SPV wallet, I wanted to weigh in, in support of the Gavin's 20Mb block proposal.

The best argument I've heard against raising the limit is that we need fee pressure.  I agree that fee pressure is the right way to economize on scarce resources. Placing hard limits on block size however is an incredibly disruptive way to go about this, and will severely negatively impact users' experience.

When users pay too low a fee, they should:

1) See immediate failure as they do now with fees that fail to propagate.

2) If the fee lower than it should be but not terminal, they should see degraded performance, long delays in confirmation, but eventual success. This will encourage them to pay higher fees in future.

The worst of all worlds would be to have transactions propagate, hang in limbo for days, and then fail. This is the most important scenario to avoid. Increasing the 1Mb block size limit I think is the simplest way to avoid this least desirable scenario for the immediate future.

We can play around with improved transaction selection for blocks and encourage miners to adopt it to discourage low fees and create fee pressure. These could involve hybrid priority/fee selection so low fee transactions see degraded performance instead of failure. This would be the conservative low risk approach.

Aaron Voisine

co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Damian Gomez <dgomez1092@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: 
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 14:04:10 -0700
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase (Raystonn)

Hello, 

I was reading some of the thread but can't say I read the entire thing. 

I think that it is realistic to cinsider a nlock sixe of 20MB for any block txn to occur. THis is an enormous amount of data (relatively for a netwkrk) in which the avergage rate of 10tps over 10 miniutes would allow for fewasible transformation of data at this curent point in time.

Though I do not see what extra hash information would be stored in the overall ecosystem as we begin to describe what the scripts that are atacrhed tp the blockchain would carry, 

I'd therefore think that for the remainder of this year that it is possible to have a block chain within 200 - 300 bytes that is more charatereistic of some feasible attempts at attaching nuanced data in order to keep propliifc the blockchain but have these identifiers be integral OPSIg of the the entiore block. THe reasoning behind this has to do with encryption standards that can be added toe a chain such as th DH algoritnm keys that would allow for a higher integrity level withinin the system as it is. Cutrent;y tyh prootocl oomnly controls for the amount of transactions through if TxnOut script and the publin key coming form teh lcoation of the proof-of-work. Form this then I think that a rate of higher than then current standard of 92bytes allows for GPUS ie CUDA to perfirm its standard operations of  1216 flops   in rde rto mechanize a new personal identity within the chain that also attaches an encrypted instance of a further categorical variable that we can prsribved to it. 

I think with the current BIP7 prootclol for transactions there is an area of vulnerability for man-in-the-middle attacks upon request of  bitcin to any merchant as is. It would contraidct the security of the bitcoin if it was intereceptefd iand not allowed to reach tthe payment network or if the hash was reveresed in orfr to change the value it had. Therefore the current best fit block size today is between 200 - 300 bytws (depending on how exciteed we get)

Thanks for letting me join the conversation

I welcomes any vhalleneged and will reply with more research as i figure out what problems are revealed in my current formation of thoughts (sorry for the errors but i am just trying to move forward ---> THE DELRERT KEY LITERALLY PREVENTS IT )

_Damian

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Raystonn <raystonn@hotmail.com>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 14:01:28 -0700
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase

Replace by fee is the better approach.  It will ultimately replace zombie transactions (due to insufficient fee) with potentially much higher fees as the feature takes hold in wallets throughout the network, and fee competition increases.  However, this does not fix the problem of low tps.  In fact, as blocks fill it could make the problem worse.  This feature means more transactions after all.  So I would expect huge fee spikes, or a return to zombie transactions if fee caps are implemented by wallets.

-Raystonn

On 8 May 2015 1:55 pm, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org> wrote:

The problems with that are larger than time being unreliable. It is no longer reorg-safe as transactions can expire in the course of a reorg and any transaction built on the now expired transaction is invalidated.

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Raystonn <raystonn@hotmail.com> wrote:

Replace by fee is what I was referencing.  End-users interpret the old transaction as expired.  Hence the nomenclature.  An alternative is a new feature that operates in the reverse of time lock, expiring a transaction after a specific time.  But time is a bit unreliable in the blockchain

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development