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 D847689E for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:53:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f43.google.com (mail-vk0-f43.google.com [209.85.213.43]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF52B107 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:53:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id d188so97157314vka.0 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:53:13 -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 :cc; bh=sknuyhGKthIb/uQiCJPVpfeTm6a5SD3kb2YUpey6Pso=; b=cesO7EEPkPkeLwextU/YhB2Ak7IzGtJvprPuc0xdFKIbB/IX9QIzIsDJ3Ax+eRdotK tt4I6ibEmDRFEURpvfBBRBD6JEJHHzyFIRHgtuJGojSHbYnyPdifRo5j7BW8zQNsD1XU tW55L6eAgG6dH07o76lbe8vhv2Fk/UjtoTGQoE76nJ7SiBaESGK1BoPOcD3sBpthObCL s/uWRbqoaBckAjmfucwvjIveZ8ASMtfJHv9wsAeX6mad4eDVbqCdmoW2ssn1pKtWIeb+ 0R7RlWsrHl2+4B2iBPhczEKoicJYfyA/4MMpBaDXDt4dcrSF5Lx5j3DfdEDHwVVB4wck KDtg== 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:cc; bh=sknuyhGKthIb/uQiCJPVpfeTm6a5SD3kb2YUpey6Pso=; b=qZKAp0T31u4MEcZnENfa9kRb+hCtakugB2lqfGlEvBYD9hbd6qFMgepxUY7OlTv7TO STCmeV/vXjIClqPNdndHlnerNc/utAHfvY/lhd+yUKaiVLOoZlNbANVkEfa+tkX5A9AZ om51f+rFHFD5f7uQzI2fmlVrAAeM9J0x+qChTFhEWve0jR7c+utxX0AbKMv9cJsFI0jq PZ4fxlqssFbZinziQ/dZ4h+Zc5sUpfD0iBjqKY1Mo97DtKr286u1zJ07tm7uWcLNqf4n GLvw7DtJBEBvRdvZc/X2hAmjLrS/o9htAUe4tau9gjz+3I9nTXUMvgQAoSjQdfRbaa88 GU6w== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2CY8Os4GmwzIQsIoY80PIDn33P7LTWHpKloDlBoN4IL3ySnwJEK5PtDw+JXNjl20O9jeNnJPoq2IGusA== X-Received: by 10.31.98.66 with SMTP id w63mr12667559vkb.165.1490723593013; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:53:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.128.19 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:53:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Alphonse Pace Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:53:11 -0500 Message-ID: To: Juan Garavaglia , Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c091dc2384f4d054bce2247 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 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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 17:53:14 -0000 --94eb2c091dc2384f4d054bce2247 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Juan, I suggest you take a look at this paper: http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf It may help you form opinions based in science rather than what appears to be nothing more than a hunch. It shows that even 4MB is unsafe. SegWit provides up to this limit. 8MB is most definitely not safe today. Whether it is unsafe or impossible is the topic, since Wang Chun proposed making the block size limit 32MiB. Wang Chun, Can you specify what meeting you are talking about? You seem to have not replied on that point. Who were the participants and what was the purpose of this meeting? -Alphonse On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Juan Garavaglia wrote: > Alphonse, > > > > In my opinion if 1MB limit was ok in 2010, 8MB limit is ok on 2016 and > 32MB limit valid in next halving, from network, storage and CPU perspective > or 1MB was too high in 2010 what is possible or 1MB is to low today. > > > > If is unsafe or impossible to raise the blocksize is a different topic. > > > Regards > > > > Juan > > > > > > *From:* bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org [mailto: > bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org] *On Behalf Of *Alphonse > Pace via bitcoin-dev > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:24 PM > *To:* Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting > > > > 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 > > > --94eb2c091dc2384f4d054bce2247 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Juan,

I suggest you take a look at this= paper:=C2=A0http= ://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf =C2=A0It may help you form op= inions based in science rather than what appears to be nothing more than a = hunch.=C2=A0 It shows that even 4MB is unsafe.=C2=A0 SegWit provides up to = this limit.

8MB is most definitely not safe today.=

Whether it is unsafe or impossible is the topic, = since Wang Chun proposed making the block size limit 32MiB. =C2=A0


=
Wang Chun,

C= an you specify what meeting you are talking about?=C2=A0 You seem to have n= ot replied on that point.=C2=A0 Who were the participants and what was the = purpose of this meeting?

-Alphonse

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Juan Garavaglia <jg@112bit.= com> wrote:

Alphonse,

=C2=A0

In my opinion if 1MB limit was ok in 2010, 8MB limi= t is ok on 2016 and 32MB limit valid in next halving, from network, storage= and CPU perspective or 1MB was too high in 2010 what is possible or 1MB is to low today.

=C2=A0

If is unsafe or impossible to raise the blocksize i= s a different topic.=C2=A0

=

=C2=A0

Regards

=C2=A0

Juan

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

From: bitcoin-dev-bounces@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org [mailto:bitcoin-dev-bounces@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:24 PM
To: Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev= @lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's m= eeting

=C2=A0

What meeting are you referring to?=C2=A0 Who were th= e participants?

=C2=A0

Removing the limit but relying on the p2p protocol i= s not really a true 32MiB limit, but a limit of whatever transport methods = provide.=C2=A0 This can lead to differing consensus if alternative layers f= or relaying are used.=C2=A0 What you seem to be asking for is an unbound block size (or at least determined by whatever= miners produce).=C2=A0 This has the possibility (and even likelihood) of r= emoving many participants from the network, including many small miners. = =C2=A0

=C2=A0

32MB in less than 3 years also appears to be far bey= ond limits of safety which are known to exist far sooner, and we cannot exp= ect hardware and networking layers to improve by those amounts in that time= .

=C2=A0

It also seems like it would be much better to wait u= ntil SegWit activates in order to truly measure the effects on the network = from this increased capacity before committing to any additional increases.=

=C2=A0

-Alphonse

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitc= oin-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/b= itcoin-dev

=C2=A0


--94eb2c091dc2384f4d054bce2247--