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 301A4E2C for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:33:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f174.google.com (mail-io0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 918F4192 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:33:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 186so49868297iow.0 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 01:33:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=friedenbach-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=T+Jc3QFCKEYybJKT27AKpU0kCoYJ6Tw71uZhiI77sB0=; b=XvKElZ4cToDO4z1gaysEyGr5S/rwt2DTELNG1ZP2CoqZJm0p8BDiQsExXY++YTYqPF 1utaLQz40FbWzF79ZLKU3A4X9iZ2jTGlC33iIWtTT2+MtMH54LATwMpVemdo2hRjpW43 jtxjoO4MO4GilO3PXS/eT51A8yWBRRbSIRSxqWTRjcUGodAKh2ejtjqbze2jtFW2IBsr WNANQKVAYenIoUmqqTxGKNnqax7kyUjSDUzpdbBymLwMArKTxz/23M5qym7vPiLQXJEi G3R56eNiwohe9VpcKF7rJXZ2OCT+InfT1s8Mtc1EzMRYXNmubKNdAcNuzD3njC02t3gp XMEw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=T+Jc3QFCKEYybJKT27AKpU0kCoYJ6Tw71uZhiI77sB0=; b=No/H3khK36/ukVjHj1MDNVb0JDXFSs+BPvhRsFeW6Fck52ACCSwEN3SZU7ux7TFIlx t11YD3MhC5ueyGRSaOHMTtraxiAgCiWozXCn19wZEiiwXIAOfltBH/+NGLUiyGYN6e1M w0G/ZJ57POe+HHbsBqgRDAzbq5fJ8JG4184xxaiHgPnX8ZgUfEXoI2mI0E+Ic980TAqy SvWmBT+QoEWpJJumlFYPVnmyMWNUDiyqLLT/sb84RI7MJqhQiKiqZRqPtUtUMDFJk2gc 2XMreJjj3ADwcPCtY2qtdDZimzOSzpefbF4K5VH1IoGpcjTAWSx9ISlg+UAFDEGdgSY+ nDEg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlEk5KXtapRko6Aw27DpBHcWwHYoS4rqbVwaYwYLxmDwvj30UlXk4Dqit2Xd+POGRzCn0H5sYtmJj4kSWunBJprOsMhhg== X-Received: by 10.107.149.199 with SMTP id x190mr20311846iod.105.1450344825994; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 01:33:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.132.193 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 01:33:26 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [101.15.162.11] In-Reply-To: <9869fe48a4fc53fc355a35cead73fca2@xbt.hk> References: <49257841-66C8-4EF7-980B-73DC604CA591@mattcorallo.com> <9869fe48a4fc53fc355a35cead73fca2@xbt.hk> From: Mark Friedenbach Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:33:26 +0800 Message-ID: To: jl2012 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140ac0e27dce5052714b8c3 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness in the context of Scaling Bitcoin X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:33:49 -0000 --001a1140ac0e27dce5052714b8c3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There are many reasons to support segwit beyond it being a soft-fork. For example: * the limitation of non-witness data to no more than 1MB makes the quadratic scaling costs in large transaction validation no worse than they currently are; * redeem scripts in witness use a more accurate cost accounting than non-witness data (further improvements to this beyond what Pieter has implemented are possible); and * segwit provides features (e.g. opt-in malleability protection) which are required by higher-level scaling solutions. With that in mind I really don't understand the viewpoint that it would be better to engage a strictly inferior proposal such as a simple adjustment of the block size to 2MB. On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:32 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > There are at least 2 proposals on the table: > > 1. SWSF (segwit soft fork) with 1MB virtual block limit, approximately > equals to 2MB actual limit > > 2. BIP102: 2MB actual limit > > Since the actual limits for both proposals are approximately the same, it > is not a determining factor in this discussion > > The biggest advantage of SWSF is its softfork nature. However, its > complexity is not comparable with any previous softforks we had. It is > reasonable to doubt if it could be ready in 6 months > > For BIP102, although it is a hardfork, it is a very simple one and could > be deployed with ISM in less than a month. It is even simpler than BIP34, > 66, and 65. > > So we have a very complicated softfork vs. a very simple hardfork. The > only reason makes BIP102 not easy is the fact that it's a hardfork. > > The major criticism for a hardfork is requiring everyone to upgrade. Is > that really a big problem? > > First of all, hardfork is not a totally unknown territory. BIP50 was a > hardfork. The accident happened on 13 March 2013. Bitcoind 0.8.1 was > released on 18 March, which only gave 2 months of grace period for everyo= ne > to upgrade. The actual hardfork happened on 16 August. Everything complet= ed > in 5 months without any panic or chaos. This experience strongly suggests > that 5 months is already safe for a simple hardfork. (in terms of > simplicity, I believe BIP102 is even simpler than BIP50) > > Another experience is from BIP66. The 0.10.0 was released on 16 Feb 2015, > exactly 10 months ago. I analyze the data on https://bitnodes.21.co and > found that 4600 out of 5090 nodes (90.4%) indicate BIP66 support. > Considering this is a softfork, I consider this as very good adoption > already. > > With the evidence from BIP50 and BIP66, I believe a 5 months > pre-announcement is good enough for BIP102. As the vast majority of miner= s > have declared their support for a 2MB solution, the legacy 1MB fork will > certainly be abandoned and no one will get robbed. > > > My primary proposal: > > Now - 15 Jan 2016: formally consult the major miners and merchants if the= y > support an one-off rise to 2MB. I consider approximately 80% of mining > power and 80% of trading volume would be good enough > > 16 - 31 Jan 2016: release 0.11.3 with BIP102 with ISM vote requiring 80% > of hashing power > > 1 Jun 2016: the first day a 2MB block may be allowed > > Before 31 Dec 2016: release SWSF > > > > My secondary proposal: > > Now: Work on SWSF in a turbo mode and have a deadline of 1 Jun 2016 > > 1 Jun 2016: release SWSF > > What if the deadline is not met? Maybe pushing an urgent BIP102 if things > become really bad. > > > In any case, I hope a clear decision and road map could be made now. This > topic has been discussed to death. We are just bringing further uncertain= ty > if we keep discussing. > > > Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev =E6=96=BC 2015-12-16 15:50 =E5=AF=AB=E5=88= =B0: > >> A large part of your argument is that SW will take longer to deploy >> than a hard fork, but I completely disagree. Though I do not agree >> with some people claiming we can deploy SW significantly faster than a >> hard fork, once the code is ready (probably a six month affair) we can >> get it deployed very quickly. It's true the ecosystem may take some >> time to upgrade, but I see that as a feature, not a bug - we can build >> up some fee pressure with an immediate release valve available for >> people to use if they want to pay fewer fees. >> >> On the other hand, a hard fork, while simpler for the ecosystem to >> upgrade to, is a 1-2 year affair (after the code is shipped, so at >> least 1.5-2.5 from today if we all put off heads down and work). One >> thing that has concerned me greatly through this whole debate is how >> quickly people seem to think we can roll out a hard fork. Go look at >> the distribution of node versions on the network today and work >> backwards to get nearly every node upgraded... Even with a year >> between fork-version-release and fork-activation, we'd still kill a >> bunch of nodes and instead of reducing their security model, lead them >> to be outright robbed. >> >> > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a1140ac0e27dce5052714b8c3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There are many reasons to support segwit be= yond it being a soft-fork. For example:

* the limitation of non-witn= ess data to no more than 1MB makes the quadratic scaling costs in large tra= nsaction validation no worse than they currently are;
* redeem scr= ipts in witness use a more accurate cost accounting than non-witness data (= further improvements to this beyond what Pieter has implemented are possibl= e); and
* segwit provides features (e.g. opt-in malleability prote= ction) which are required by higher-level scaling solutions.

W= ith that in mind I really don't understand the viewpoint that it would = be better to engage a strictly inferior proposal such as a simple adjustmen= t of the block size to 2MB.

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:32 PM, jl2012 v= ia bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<= /a>> wrote:
There are at least = 2 proposals on the table:

1. SWSF (segwit soft fork) with 1MB virtual block limit, approximately equa= ls to 2MB actual limit

2. BIP102: 2MB actual limit

Since the actual limits for both proposals are approximately the same, it i= s not a determining factor in this discussion

The biggest advantage of SWSF is its softfork nature. However, its complexi= ty is not comparable with any previous softforks we had. It is reasonable t= o doubt if it could be ready in 6 months

For BIP102, although it is a hardfork, it is a very simple one and could be= deployed with ISM in less than a month. It is even simpler than BIP34, 66,= and 65.

So we have a very complicated softfork vs. a very simple hardfork. The only= reason makes BIP102 not easy is the fact that it's a hardfork.

The major criticism for a hardfork is requiring everyone to upgrade. Is tha= t really a big problem?

First of all, hardfork is not a totally unknown territory. BIP50 was a hard= fork. The accident happened on 13 March 2013. Bitcoind 0.8.1 was released o= n 18 March, which only gave 2 months of grace period for everyone to upgrad= e. The actual hardfork happened on 16 August. Everything completed in 5 mon= ths without any panic or chaos. This experience strongly suggests that 5 mo= nths is already safe for a simple hardfork. (in terms of simplicity, I beli= eve BIP102 is even simpler than BIP50)

Another experience is from BIP66. The 0.10.0 was released on 16 Feb 2015, e= xactly 10 months ago. I analyze the data on https://bitnodes.21.co and fou= nd that 4600 out of 5090 nodes (90.4%) indicate BIP66 support. Considering = this is a softfork, I consider this as very good adoption already.

With the evidence from BIP50 and BIP66, I believe a 5 months pre-announceme= nt is good enough for BIP102. As the vast majority of miners have declared = their support for a 2MB solution, the legacy 1MB fork will certainly be aba= ndoned and no one will get robbed.


My primary proposal:

Now - 15 Jan 2016: formally consult the major miners and merchants if they = support an one-off rise to 2MB. I consider approximately 80% of mining powe= r and 80% of trading volume would be good enough

16 - 31 Jan 2016: release 0.11.3 with BIP102 with ISM vote requiring 80% of= hashing power

1 Jun 2016: the first day a 2MB block may be allowed

Before 31 Dec 2016: release SWSF



My secondary proposal:

Now: Work on SWSF in a turbo mode and have a deadline of 1 Jun 2016

1 Jun 2016: release SWSF

What if the deadline is not met? Maybe pushing an urgent BIP102 if things b= ecome really bad.


In any case, I hope a clear decision and road map could be made now. This t= opic has been discussed to death. We are just bringing further uncertainty = if we keep discussing.


Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev =E6=96=BC 2015-12-16 15:50 =E5=AF=AB=E5=88=B0:=
A large part of your argument is that SW will take longer to deploy
than a hard fork, but I completely disagree. Though I do not agree
with some people claiming we can deploy SW significantly faster than a
hard fork, once the code is ready (probably a six month affair) we can
get it deployed very quickly. It's true the ecosystem may take some
time to upgrade, but I see that as a feature, not a bug - we can build
up some fee pressure with an immediate release valve available for
people to use if they want to pay fewer fees.

=C2=A0On the other hand, a hard fork, while simpler for the ecosystem to upgrade to, is a 1-2 year affair (after the code is shipped, so at
least 1.5-2.5 from today if we all put off heads down and work). One
thing that has concerned me greatly through this whole debate is how
quickly people seem to think we can roll out a hard fork. Go look at
the distribution of node versions on the network today and work
backwards to get nearly every node upgraded... Even with a year
between fork-version-release and fork-activation, we'd still kill a
bunch of nodes and instead of reducing their security model, lead them
to be outright robbed.


 _______________________________________________

--001a1140ac0e27dce5052714b8c3--