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 BB13E7AE for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 20:51:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com (mail-pa0-f41.google.com [209.85.220.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE6612DB for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 20:51:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pacgr6 with SMTP id gr6so140312304pac.2 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:51:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=9ncmUxwSnTtGstik5E/S+frVu5/KvzVYpF4FVX2nSCs=; b=RNeovwJEIYRGKWWSZgod6e1Vyxe2Bn6rms6+ghOjheEwVCj3pDSgvSlgmaf47f3R3f ix1i5zQvTmD29xta1rMPAaMntR9KRM3IiqF88xGRMXLo+IMKPSdcXN3cp8PV/a0VGSFN 5KdPZakRSdGh8+bVYi9rx9/m4lfXA9mmUj195P6m7cj4ThsfnhF3mE/NMiY9cku1hHgT Y3FtKYi+alRV1oAXT98FQNULiXQK5ZEfv1Hv3T2FcYwBejXqxbV0SzjsxlxRM8CcV8I7 0iRkgKTX6w0dmvsyrgCIyhyYbAIPq/D8xP8bqW4mIzQkXcL+vZMH5RmWabyPJCjrM33X +HVQ== X-Received: by 10.68.227.8 with SMTP id rw8mr17342895pbc.74.1439931103562; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:51:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.107] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id nm8sm19063250pbc.20.2015.08.18.13.51.39 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:51:39 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B5B32691-E3D1-48F6-91C2-71261541A22C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5 From: Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:51:38 -0700 Message-Id: References: To: Danny Thorpe X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) 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@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork? 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: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 20:51:44 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_B5B32691-E3D1-48F6-91C2-71261541A22C Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9CF1A07F-4192-4AC2-8FEF-124B39ADD252" --Apple-Mail=_9CF1A07F-4192-4AC2-8FEF-124B39ADD252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Problem is if you know most of the people running the testnet personally = (as is pretty much the case with many current testnets) then the = deployment amounts to =E2=80=9Chey guys, let=E2=80=99s install the new = version=E2=80=9D > On Aug 18, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Danny Thorpe via bitcoin-dev = wrote: >=20 > Deploying experimental code onto the "live" bitcoin blockchain seems = unnecessarily risky. Why not deploy a blocksize limit experiment for = long term trials using testnet instead? >=20 > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:54 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev = > wrote: > As I understand, there is already a consensus among core dev that = block size should/could be raised. The remaining questions are how, = when, how much, and how fast. These are the questions for the coming = Bitcoin Scalability Workshops but immediate consensus in these issues = are not guaranteed. >=20 > Could we just stop the debate for a moment, and agree to a scheduled = experimental hardfork? >=20 > Objectives (by order of importance): >=20 > 1. The most important objective is to show the world that reaching = consensus for a Bitcoin hardfork is possible. If we could have a = successful one, we would have more in the future >=20 > 2. With a slight increase in block size, to collect data for future = hardforks >=20 > 3. To slightly relieve the pressure of full block, without minimal = adverse effects on network performance >=20 > With the objectives 1 and 2 in mind, this is to NOT intended to be a = kick-the-can-down-the-road solution. The third objective is more like a = side effect of this experiment. >=20 >=20 > Proposal (parameters in ** are my recommendations but negotiable): >=20 > 1. Today, we all agree that some kind of block size hardfork will = happen on t1=3D*1 June 2016* >=20 > 2. If no other consensus could be reached before t2=3D*1 Feb 2016*, we = will adopt the backup plan >=20 > 3. The backup plan is: t3=3D*30 days* after m=3D*80%* of miner = approval, but not before t1=3D*1 June 2016*, the block size is increased = to s=3D*1.5MB* >=20 > 4. If the backup plan is adopted, we all agree that a better solution = should be found before t4=3D*31 Dec 2017*. >=20 > Rationale: >=20 > t1 =3D 1 June 2016 is chosen to make sure everyone have enough time to = prepare for a hardfork. Although we do not know what actually will = happen but we know something must happen around that moment. >=20 > t2 =3D 1 Feb 2016 is chosen to allow 5 more months of negotiations = (and 2 months after the workshops). If it is successful, we don't need = to activate the backup plan >=20 > t3 =3D 30 days is chosen to make sure every full nodes have enough = time to upgrade after the actual hardfork date is confirmed >=20 > t4 =3D 31 Dec 2017 is chosen, with 1.5 year of data and further = debate, hopefully we would find a better solution. It is important to = acknowledge that the backup plan is not a final solution >=20 > m =3D 80%: We don't want a very small portion of miners to have the = power to veto a hardfork, while it is important to make sure the new = fork is secured by enough mining power. 80% is just a compromise. >=20 > s =3D 1.5MB. As the 1MB cap was set 5 years ago, there is no doubt = that all types of technology has since improved by >50%. I don't mind = making it a bit smaller but in that case not much valuable data could be = gathered and the second objective of this experiment may not be = archived. >=20 > -------------------- >=20 > If the community as a whole could agree with this experimental = hardfork, we could announce the plan on bitcoin.org = and start coding of the patch immediately. At the = same time, exploration for a better solution continues. If no further = consensus could be reached, a new version of Bitcoin Core with the patch = will be released on or before 1 Feb 2016 and everyone will be asked to = upgrade immediately. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org = > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev = >=20 > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --Apple-Mail=_9CF1A07F-4192-4AC2-8FEF-124B39ADD252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Problem is if you know most of the people running the testnet = personally (as is pretty much the case with many current testnets) then = the deployment amounts to =E2=80=9Chey guys, let=E2=80=99s install the = new version=E2=80=9D

On Aug 18, 2015, at 1:48 PM, = Danny Thorpe via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Deploying experimental code onto the "live" bitcoin = blockchain seems unnecessarily risky.  Why not deploy a blocksize = limit experiment for long term trials using testnet instead?

On Tue, = Aug 18, 2015 at 2:54 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> = wrote:
As I understand, = there is already a consensus among core dev that block size should/could = be raised. The remaining questions are how, when, how much, and how = fast. These are the questions for the coming Bitcoin Scalability = Workshops but immediate consensus in these issues are not guaranteed.

Could we just stop the debate for a moment, and agree to a scheduled = experimental hardfork?

Objectives (by order of importance):

1. The most important objective is to show the world that reaching = consensus for a Bitcoin hardfork is possible. If we could have a = successful one, we would have more in the future

2. With a slight increase in block size, to collect data for future = hardforks

3. To slightly relieve the pressure of full block, without minimal = adverse effects on network performance

With the objectives 1 and 2 in mind, this is to NOT intended to be a = kick-the-can-down-the-road solution. The third objective is more like a = side effect of this experiment.


Proposal (parameters in ** are my recommendations but negotiable):

1. Today, we all agree that some kind of block size hardfork will happen = on t1=3D*1 June 2016*

2. If no other consensus could be reached before t2=3D*1 Feb 2016*, we = will adopt the backup plan

3. The backup plan is: t3=3D*30 days* after m=3D*80%* of miner approval, = but not before t1=3D*1 June 2016*, the block size is increased to = s=3D*1.5MB*

4. If the backup plan is adopted, we all agree that a better solution = should be found before t4=3D*31 Dec 2017*.

Rationale:

t1 =3D 1 June 2016 is chosen to make sure everyone have enough time to = prepare for a hardfork. Although we do not know what actually will = happen but we know something must happen around that moment.

t2 =3D 1 Feb 2016 is chosen to allow 5 more months of negotiations (and = 2 months after the workshops). If it is successful, we don't need to = activate the backup plan

t3 =3D 30 days is chosen to make sure every full nodes have enough time = to upgrade after the actual hardfork date is confirmed

t4 =3D 31 Dec 2017 is chosen, with 1.5 year of data and further debate, = hopefully we would find a better solution. It is important to = acknowledge that the backup plan is not a final solution

m =3D 80%: We don't want a very small portion of miners to have the = power to veto a hardfork, while it is important to make sure the new = fork is secured by enough mining power. 80% is just a compromise.

s =3D 1.5MB. As the 1MB cap was set 5 years ago, there is no doubt that = all types of technology has since improved by >50%. I don't mind = making it a bit smaller but in that case not much valuable data could be = gathered and the second objective of this experiment may not be = archived.

--------------------

If the community as a whole could agree with this experimental hardfork, = we could announce the plan on bitcoin.org and = start coding of the patch immediately. At the same time, exploration for = a better solution continues. If no further consensus could be reached, a = new version of Bitcoin Core with the patch will be released on or before = 1 Feb 2016 and everyone will be asked to upgrade immediately.
_______________________________________________
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<= br class=3D"">

= --Apple-Mail=_9CF1A07F-4192-4AC2-8FEF-124B39ADD252-- --Apple-Mail=_B5B32691-E3D1-48F6-91C2-71261541A22C Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJV05raAAoJEJNAI64YFENU85UP/AtSN/pVMmDzZ8USEmgxurPz mmCHArB4o5RGacuHo6zwipKczYyJWiSbQmipZ7qhT7TFc30LmKnjSnYmnPgwCTY2 RNZcF2VBWVZUwUdEv9UJQLCJMI6kVrjX2H8BRGB/kjC4Ib/2sm1VbwaCi7sX1P24 nwrGXvvp6DsC6mf6t0Ptev7py69/8DFt3+WNioeKI8Qj6+1+AKkgyH3iUyJ+zIV3 oTbVIt/hBt6f2IVxBDKkxoWhZs6MMMm/vG2ZvKciH6B2s5D9hIkSa01pIddrAh0G Eyx90z50TJyW3rROXo1tvy/Iaqcv2oLxHAmHOqLcV+KmjBcZISEavRYKFA1Nsimn eovSXeoSRSqh2t+p/AICKVDnJRKtFC3AJ/Q1AUpV0K/56u2R+B9SyEBxi9y1wx/N 2orpfxOn+3tidX8sB15t4SyEfjyyNVYqM9Qv2l/Mz29hApCezazfgzlT7qg4gy4T kANz6b33I8fQrru7ofqBy+d0dNVMusNkcZBW/BMQ9UbamK3NmbNdGpdXYIfOMU71 t6n2pA0HKJzUbHXJg2lX/CgH8b/3gat3DRYWbZXpMT4FMXJEHYDxAcKDbzJkJ4vx 7Tpae1/iQ1RS/uUSmTFT1FQFTqZtpzJNjmrKEk+KftfLXe2SXzTAEMjQes+vYkBX aBO/NNJD5Zyvhc9VtyAj =vRj6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_B5B32691-E3D1-48F6-91C2-71261541A22C--