Re: [bitcoin-dev] A roadmap to a better header format and bigger block size

[Ricardo Filipe <ricardojdfilipe@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4729 bytes --]

I believe i've seen Luke say this several times before, but there are
several more things that the majority of the devs agree should be in
bitcoin.
I would suggest to compile that list for your stage 3, so that you can have
an hardfork that fixes most of those things, and there should be some
repository with those changes deployed.

2016-02-09 14:16 GMT+00:00 jl2012--- via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:

> I would like to present a 2-3 year roadmap to a better header format and
> bigger block size
>
> Objectives:
>
> 1. Multistage rule changes to make sure everyone will have enough time to
> upgrade
> 2. Make mining easier, without breaking existing mining hardware and the
> Stratum protocol
> 3. Make future hardfork less disruptive (with Luke-Jr's proposal)
>
> Stage 1 is Segregated Witness (BIP141), which will not break any existing
> full or light nodes. This may happen in Q2-Q3 2016
>
> Stage 2 is fixes that will break existing full nodes, but not light nodes:
> a. Increase the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE (the exact value is not suggested in this
> roadmap), potentially change the witness discount
> b. Anti-DoS rules for the O(n^2) validation of non-segwit scripts
> c. (optional) Move segwit's commitments to the header Merkle tree. This is
> optional at this stage as it will be fixed in Stage 3 anyway
> This may happen in Q1-Q2 2017
>
> Stage 3 is fixes that will break all existing full nodes and light nodes:
> a. Full nodes upgraded to Stage 2 will not need to upgrade again, as the
> rules and activation logic should be included already
> b. Change the header format to Luke-Jr's proposal, and move all commitments
> (tx, witness, etc) to the new structure. All existing mining hardware with
> Stratum protocol should work.
> c. Reclaiming unused bits in header for mining. All existing mining chips
> should still work. Newly designed chips should be ready for the new rule.
> d. Fix the time warp attack
> This may happen in 2018 to 2019
>
> Pros:
> a. Light nodes (usually less tech-savvy users) will have longer time to
> upgrade
> b. The stage 2 is opt-in for full nodes.
> c. The stage 3 is opt-in for light nodes.
>
> Cons:
> a. The stage 2 is not opt-in for light nodes. They will blindly follow the
> longest chain which they might actually don't want to
> b. Non-upgraded full nodes will follow the old chain at Stage 2, which is
> likely to have lower value.
> c. Non-upgraded light nodes will follow the old chain at Stage 3, which is
> likely to have lower value. (However, this is not a concern as no one
> should
> be mining on the old chain at that time)
>
> -------------------------------
> An alternative roadmap would be:
>
> Stage 2 is fixes that will break existing full nodes and light nodes.
> However, they will not follow the minority chain
> a. Increase the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE, potentially change the witness discount
> b. Anti-DoS rules for the O(n^2) validation of non-segwit scripts
> c. Change the header format to Luke-Jr's proposal, and move all commitments
> (tx, witness, etc) to the new structure.
> This may happen in mid 2017 or later
>
> Stage 3 is fixes that will break all existing full nodes and light nodes.
> a. Full nodes and light nodes upgraded to Stage 2 will not need to upgrade
> again, as the rules and activation logic should be included already
> b. Reclaiming unused bits in header for mining. All existing mining chips
> should still work.
> c. Fix the time warp attack
> This may happen in 2018 to 2019
>
> Pros:
> a. The stage 2 and 3 are opt-in for everyone
> b. Even failing to upgrade, full nodes and light nodes won't follow the
> minority chain at stage 2
>
> Cons:
> a. Non-upgraded full/light nodes will follow the old chain at Stage 3,
> which
> is likely to have lower value. (However, this is not a concern as no one
> should be mining on the old chain at that time)
> b. It takes longer to implement stage 2 to give enough time for light node
> users to upgrade
>
> -------------------------------
>
> In terms of safety, the second proposal is better. In terms of disruption,
> the first proposal is less disruptive
>
> I would also like to emphasize that it is miners' responsibility, not the
> devs', to confirm that the supermajority of the community accept changes in
> Stage 2 and 3.
>
> Reference:
> Matt Corallo's proposal:
>
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012403.
> html
> Luke-Jr's proposal:
>
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012377.
> html
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5846 bytes --]