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 8717A8EE for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:23:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pg0-f66.google.com (mail-pg0-f66.google.com [74.125.83.66]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1459623A for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:23:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg0-f66.google.com with SMTP id 81so22788069pgh.3 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:23:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=lfA7XXirNhsmE9ToxfExKdOApwQCTdkZPdoOmkXKCLE=; b=gS9/txsKTkLHyolVqwK5iQCPTHd66kl/zMlijU2Ed368412b7Jdk3XTth9lhYyGzZA oertwQAslBRfXBEqwectGz7V1XybNtPTfjsbV0fZ1Mdyookqgk9oaxwX0FDMv9D12yI5 9rcgShY6byTjDxutoDV3ye/TtPsvNGcSSSfmvHUZW1xlmFAT6LN8ligW+kKVfZA9QY2z O1c0ywlX9lNjmp6EcoY9B7lCLv1FOdeOjZ6mL/3ee3ktfxrlbiWzKHu0rRXSEYgRyW/v GPLRNWPlwnaqWADl2zXbsNPTFUcnSigZZ1j2JEz+8fJVQKkIPYLEKFE32XZsvgQL/aXE HWhQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=lfA7XXirNhsmE9ToxfExKdOApwQCTdkZPdoOmkXKCLE=; b=Dwcq22z6FMCsC3piimjVI5zj6mkkh5Id4W/YImDttE4yhmQSmOrZiUXBwexiooXaoJ 72w4+2qLkpQJ1oeqkkkA+NxSVHUoFjp7nUeg+vgoSAqV2JHpZisv8CE0FmnrqEvSQ1oG 0RLV9C2R/x1VWShw5lFreIbGbLbXoKjMrDHo7cDpZ9JQHrbWYxD5hlI7kG2QvwXgvpWc UwUiOgrIUXnGnu96bpDv0eCDIQGh1DxNWDI720xjalBO3lKpHr5FeGHxeQOM/fyMpAKm icSVtNTgG/mvnuPRD6njvvQJ7/Qv+BMeunyaIHd2bNPL4dFCfqsefulch//67Lrf7NTT 9P4Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3IjM0nxfTbSBi/uB3+dhnmpVOBcx6FPche51ZlmAjHOhBt8dmNmcoVWJTtJfS3dktsCLhNZRMZxNE5BQ== X-Received: by 10.99.140.27 with SMTP id m27mr32009080pgd.174.1490721811890; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:23:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.128.19 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:23:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Alphonse Pace Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:23:31 -0500 Message-ID: To: Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1b6a240e874b054bcdb865 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, 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: Re: [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 17:23:33 -0000 --94eb2c1b6a240e874b054bcdb865 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 What meeting are you referring to? Who were the participants? Removing the limit but relying on the p2p protocol is not really a true 32MiB limit, but a limit of whatever transport methods provide. This can lead to differing consensus if alternative layers for relaying are used. What you seem to be asking for is an unbound block size (or at least determined by whatever miners produce). This has the possibility (and even likelihood) of removing many participants from the network, including many small miners. 32MB in less than 3 years also appears to be far beyond limits of safety which are known to exist far sooner, and we cannot expect hardware and networking layers to improve by those amounts in that time. It also seems like it would be much better to wait until SegWit activates in order to truly measure the effects on the network from this increased capacity before committing to any additional increases. -Alphonse On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > 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. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --94eb2c1b6a240e874b054bcdb865 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What meeting are you referring to?=C2=A0 Who were the part= icipants?

Removing the limit but relying on the p2p prot= ocol is not really a true 32MiB limit, but a limit of whatever transport me= thods provide.=C2=A0 This can lead to differing consensus if alternative la= yers for relaying are used.=C2=A0 What you seem to be asking for is an unbo= und block size (or at least determined by whatever miners produce).=C2=A0 T= his has the possibility (and even likelihood) of removing many participants= from the network, including many small miners. =C2=A0

=
32MB in less than 3 years also appears to be far beyond limits of safe= ty which are known to exist far sooner, and we cannot expect hardware and n= etworking layers to improve by those amounts in that time.

It also seems like it would be much better to wait until SegWit ac= tivates in order to truly measure the effects on the network from this incr= eased capacity before committing to any additional increases.
-Alphonse



On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:= 59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.li= nuxfoundation.org> wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--94eb2c1b6a240e874b054bcdb865--