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 E7B96F8F for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:01:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com (mail-ig0-f176.google.com [209.85.213.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C8CB8C for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:01:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f176.google.com with SMTP id ph11so126702661igc.1 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 15:01:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=rlyEU3oTL8W79xfU9KQJZ857CXLg20Dad83w977bqME=; b=LzjC0I470neYhM7P+8N0+DKHqTpMKLSwH9gfI5Av0HdFvLhQ4nd5ZFvzSMoEcqhtNH KRglNV9O1TdPKP8sNjkoQ4k38kgvjW/accgsnYQpcnnPKk+ZN1FAsdbDT/btAUJZxROo gQ8UfqKiHGOWH2/h7bta4C57aUc/whcmMrDp9s2PWu8QfMqEvxNiTXaip2C+OZdaskfb GlbiYCZyR+BJi8qj4t6nptAASTdZ/xUDrjWVT5hcBFkxlKFsse4aPh32RU6nDQmOuFua /aRpFht7uhx2iEbIsilxcoQ3iTrWwi+l5ner+Ko3UYHmZPNHGU4rhICsDsqopXrXybFY 4EkQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.66.179 with SMTP id g19mr29347075igt.94.1451170864743; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 15:01:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.80.6 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 15:01:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.80.6 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 15:01:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <246AA3BE-570D-4B88-A63D-AC76CB2B0CB8@toom.im> References: <751DFAA9-9013-4C54-BC1E-5F7ECB7469CC@gmail.com> <246AA3BE-570D-4B88-A63D-AC76CB2B0CB8@toom.im> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 00:01:04 +0100 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Jonathan Toomim Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc15b2e6cd560527d50bda X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,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: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard 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: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:01:06 -0000 --047d7bdc15b2e6cd560527d50bda Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Dec 26, 2015 23:55, "Jonathan Toomim" wrote: > > On Dec 26, 2015, at 8:44 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> Furthermore, 75% is pretty terrible as a switchover point, as it guarantees that old nodes will still see a 25% forked off chain temporarily. > > Yes, 75% plus a grace period is better. I prefer a grace period of about 4000 to 8000 blocks (1 to 2 months). I think that's extremely short, even assuming there is no controversy about changing the rules at all. Things like BIP65 and BIP66 already took significantly longer than that, were uncontroversial, and only need miner adoption. Full node adoption is even slower. I think the shortest reasonable timeframe for an uncontroversial hardfork is somewhere in the range between 6 and 12 months. For a controversial one, not at all. -- Pieter --047d7bdc15b2e6cd560527d50bda Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Dec 26, 2015 23:55, "Jonathan Toomim" <j@toom.im> wrote:
>
> On Dec 26, 2015, at 8:44 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo= undation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Furthermore, 75% is pretty terrible as a switchover point, as it g= uarantees that old nodes will still see a 25% forked off chain temporarily.=
>
> Yes, 75% plus a grace period is better. I prefer a grace period of abo= ut 4000 to 8000 blocks (1 to 2 months).

I think that's extremely short, even assuming there is n= o controversy about changing the rules at all. Things like BIP65 and BIP66 = already took significantly longer than that, were uncontroversial, and only= need miner adoption. Full node adoption is even slower.

I think the shortest reasonable timeframe for an uncontrover= sial hardfork is somewhere in the range between 6 and 12 months.

For a controversial one, not at all.

--
Pieter

--047d7bdc15b2e6cd560527d50bda--