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 45F3C41C for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 16:15:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com (mail-wm0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69C0019D for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 16:15:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f52.google.com with SMTP id t189so19658651wmt.1 for ; Sat, 01 Apr 2017 09:15:35 -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=eeA+bROzc0Kj5tb8oMFbg4dtRxuLLbXF+6v/Iq7XQtQ=; b=aKKA2tTfrktGEhw56oZhGuwtRUJ7AKLzgZ0wh/44wucbkpbMU4R98h4g9ONx1/dsVa HRZj267c8yEas2JpWY1vxzmrWhZUD4UuJ0vL+lOW5lT6NFEkJMoNNm7YkHXfGluRFXAV +62yJzBpUV3TPC5BBwoRbdq1cBpmKQ8eUNXZIVZ38dU5eFInXw8bT+3zMl2vCT04dnY1 oieG1RKKJV2ujnyxVx4BfKUH6mnBtNxAP3UWLZxX9JxbP4W/8hVLZgDKhgB14IcUe6uw awKvKAXecWEjmiw0iZIhIivmjhk56uL9CCZLuA1DEWAxFLHZzHmsLiRNkciDIQhMJ6ND DWnQ== 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=eeA+bROzc0Kj5tb8oMFbg4dtRxuLLbXF+6v/Iq7XQtQ=; b=mi517mJwN3KuQ3mge47Nf276JcGv+gVN3HLQPfrjylRKEJoyX2Mq0YHUR/3RPiZ4UU Crx8F9qTCPqK1NaZiq+BWEBpUJxEfFEHUHwslVwgu8yzFF6bfZjmlIRpuPh10F271ooZ 6BMM0WJZ7CDPQKPTwGrZ32Yt6Z2g4rtWKAxqHxwgZnCB8uFc70NHBrte0IJHyPa9xSk2 oTFUk/jncTieRWBUsENDNoWp5trGVK7Fo2qYPUxzY3njFv2wpVAGxgJ8eLXE4I6WKCRI mO6vPvquhcMzBhkY19MGWslB1TVpfRxOyGCzRFA30STTaVwT7HVEmJ3+QdLWwy1FMYzC g9gg== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3itgChyB75oNT0Caro0ubq0YG77Xf/z3hqF84Tl/5Rx3geoZe0TNIW58t3xcyA2Wkju/9fJuPfiRndeg== X-Received: by 10.28.92.212 with SMTP id q203mr2798066wmb.73.1491063333910; Sat, 01 Apr 2017 09:15:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.54.41 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 09:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.54.41 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 09:15:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1471A2C5-C72C-46EB-8C7A-C2FAF705E88B@xbt.hk> References: <1471A2C5-C72C-46EB-8C7A-C2FAF705E88B@xbt.hk> From: Leandro Coutinho Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 13:15:32 -0300 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Johnson Lau Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1145b06e5b070b054c1d3cae X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLY,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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 01 Apr 2017 16:21:19 +0000 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: Sat, 01 Apr 2017 16:15:37 -0000 --001a1145b06e5b070b054c1d3cae Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable One interesting thing to do is to compare how much does it cost to maintain a bank check account and how much does it cost to run a full node. It seems that it is about 120USD/year in USA: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6219730 A 4TB hard drive ~=3D115USD https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B01LQQH86A/ref=3Dmp_s_a_1_4 And it has a warranty of 3 years. As your calculation shows, it will take more than 19 years to reach 4TB with a 4MB blocksize. Em 29/03/2017 12:35, "Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> escreveu: On 29 Mar 2017, at 14:24, Emin G=C3=BCn Sirer via bitcoin-dev wrote: >Even when several of the experts involved in the document you refer has my respect and admiration, I do not agree with some of their conclusions I'm one of the co-authors of that study. I'd be the first to agree with your conclusion and argue that the 4MB size suggested in that paper should not be used without compensation for two important changes to the network. Our recent measurements of the Bitcoin P2P network show that network speeds have improved tremendously. From February 2016 to February 2017, the averag= e provisioned bandwidth of a reachable Bitcoin node went up by approximately 70%. And that's just in the last year. 4 * 144 * 30 =3D 17.3GB per month, or 207GB per year. Full node initialisation will become prohibitive for most users until a shortcut is made (e.g. witness pruning and UTXO commitment but these are not trust-free= ) Further, the emergence of high-speed block relay networks, like Falcon ( http://www.falcon-net.org) and FIBRE, as well as block compression, e.g. BIP152 and xthin, change the picture dramatically. Also as the co-author of the selfish mining paper, you should know all these technology assume big miners being benevolent. So, the 4MB limit mentioned in our paper should not be used as a protocol limit today. Best, - egs On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Juan Garavaglia via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Alphonse, > > > > Even when several of the experts involved in the document you refer has m= y > respect and admiration, I do not agree with some of their conclusions som= e > of their estimations are not accurate other changed like Bootstrap Time, > Cost per Confirmed Transaction they consider a network of 450,000,00 GH a= nd > today is 3.594.236.966 GH, the energy consumption per GH is old, the cost > of electricity is wrong even when the document was made and is hard to fi= nd > any parameter used that is valid for an analysis today. > > > > Again with all respect to the experts involved in that analysis is not > valid today. > > > > I tend to believe more in Moore=E2=80=99s law, Butters' Law of Photonics = and > Kryder=E2=80=99s Law all has been verified for many years and support tha= t 32 MB in > 2020 are possible and equals or less than 1 MB in 2010. > > > > Again may be is not possible Johnson Lau and LukeJr invested a significan= t > amount of time investigating ways to do a safe HF, and may be not possibl= e > to do a safe HF today but from processing power, bandwidth and storage is > totally valid and Wang Chung proposal has solid grounds. > > > > Regards > > > > Juan > > > > > > *From:* Alphonse Pace [mailto:alp.bitcoin@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:53 PM > *To:* Juan Garavaglia ; Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com> > *Cc:* Bitcoin Protocol Discussion > > *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting > > > > Juan, > > > > I suggest you take a look at this paper: http://fc16.ifca.ai/bit > coin/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 purpos= e > 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 perspecti= ve > 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 ev= en > likelihood) of removing many participants from the network, including man= y > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --001a1145b06e5b070b054c1d3cae Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
One interesting thing to do is to compare how much d= oes it cost to maintain a bank check account and how much does it cost to r= un a full node.

It seems that = it is about 120USD/year in USA:

A 4TB hard drive ~=3D= 115USD
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B01LQQH86A/ref=3Dmp_s_a_1_4

And it has a warranty of 3 y= ears.

As your calculatio= n shows, it will take more than 19 years to reach 4TB with a 4MB blocksize.=

= Em 29/03/2017 12:35, "Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfound= ation.org> escreveu:

<= blockquote type=3D"cite">
On 29 Mar 2017, at 14:24, Emin G=C3=BCn Sirer= via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wro= te:

=
>Even when several of the experts involved in the document you = refer has my respect and admiration, I do not agree with some of their conc= lusions

I'm one of the co-authors of that study. I'= ;d be the first to agree with your conclusion
and=C2=A0argue that = the 4MB size=C2=A0suggested in that paper should not be used without<= /div>
compensation for two important changes to the network.
=

=
Our recent measurements of the Bitcoin P2P network show that network= speeds
have improved tremendously. From February 2016 = to February 2017, the average
provisioned bandwidth of = a reachable Bitcoin node went up by approximately 70%.=C2=A0<= /div>
And that's just in the last year.
=

4 * 144 * 30 =3D 17.3GB per month, o= r 207GB per year. Full node initialisation will become prohibitive for most= users until a shortcut is made (e.g. witness pruning and UTXO commitment b= ut these are not trust-free)


Further, th= e emergence of high-speed block relay networks, like Falcon=C2=A0(http://www.falcon-net= .org)
and FIBRE, as well as block compression, e.g. B= IP152 and xthin, change the picture dramatically.=C2=A0
=

Also as the co-author of= the selfish mining paper, you should know all these technology assume big = miners being benevolent.


So, the 4MB limit mention= ed in our paper should not be used as a protocol limit today.=C2=A0

Best,
- egs

<= br>

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Juan Garavaglia via bitcoin-de= v <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org><= /span> wrote:

Alphonse,

=C2=A0

Even when several = of the experts involved in the document you refer has my respect and admira= tion, I do not agree with some of their conclusions some of their estimatio= ns are not accurate other changed like Bootstrap Time, Cost per Confirmed Transac= tion they consider a network of 450,000,00 GH and today is 3.594.236.966 GH= , the energy consumption per GH is old, the cost of electricity is wrong ev= en when the document was made and is hard to find any parameter used that is valid for an analysis today.=

=C2=A0

Again with all respect to the experts involved in= that analysis is not valid today.

=C2=A0

I tend to = believe more in Moore=E2=80=99s law, Butters' Law of Photonics and Kryd= er=E2=80=99s Law all has been verified for many years and support that 32 M= B in 2020 are possible and equals or less than 1 MB in 2010.

= =C2=A0

Again may be is not= possible Johnson Lau and LukeJr invested a significant amount of time inve= stigating ways to do a safe HF, and may be not possible to do a safe HF tod= ay but from processing power, bandwidth and storage is totally valid and Wang= Chung proposal has solid grounds.

=C2=A0

Regards=

=C2=A0

Juan

=C2=A0

=C2=A0=

From: Alphonse Pace [= mailto:alp.bitco= in@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:53 PM
To: Juan Garavaglia <jg@112bit.com>; Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>

Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's m= eeting

=C2=A0

Juan,

=C2=A0

I suggest you take a look at this paper:=C2=A0<= a href=3D"http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf" target=3D"_blank">= http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf =C2=A0It may help yo= u form opinions based in science rather than what appears to be nothing mor= e than a hunch.=C2=A0 It shows that even 4MB is unsafe.=C2=A0 SegWit provide= s up to this limit.

=C2=A0

8MB is most definitely not safe today.

=C2=A0

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

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

Wang Chun,


Can you specify what meeting you are talking about?=C2=A0 You seem to have = not replied on that point.=C2=A0 Who were the participants and what was the= purpose of this meeting?

=C2=A0

-Alphonse

=C2=A0

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

Alphonse,

=C2=A0

In my op= inion if 1MB limit was ok in 2010, 8MB limit is ok on 2016 and 32MB limit v= alid in next halving, from network, storage and CPU perspective or 1MB was too high in 2010 what is possible o= r 1MB is to low today.

=C2= =A0

If is unsafe or impossi= ble to raise the blocksize is a different topic.=C2=A0=

=C2=A0

Regards

=C2=A0

Juan

<= p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0

=C2=A0

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 m= eeting

=C2=A0

What meeting are you referring to?=C2=A0 Who we= re the participants?

=C2=A0

Removing the limit but relying on the p2p proto= col is not really a true 32MiB limit, but a limit of whatever transport met= hods provide.=C2=A0 This can lead to differing consensus if alternative layers for relaying are used.=C2=A0 What you seem to be asking= for is an unbound block size (or at least determined by whatever miners pr= oduce).=C2=A0 This has the possibility (and even likelihood) of removing ma= ny participants from the network, including many small miners. =C2=A0

=C2=A0

32MB in less than 3 years also appears to be fa= r beyond limits of safety which are known to exist far sooner, and we canno= t expect hardware and networking layers to improve by those amounts in that time.

=C2=A0

It also seems like it would be much better to w= ait until SegWit activates in order to truly measure the effects on the net= work 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= bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:<= u>

I've proposed this hard fork appro= ach 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

=C2=A0


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing= list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<= /a>


_______________________= ________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a1145b06e5b070b054c1d3cae--