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 9F19D305 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:53:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pd0-f178.google.com (mail-pd0-f178.google.com [209.85.192.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 281E5109 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:53:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pdob1 with SMTP id b1so15617999pdo.2 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:53:02 -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=0bMHhPENUoacmK9xnCEIUe3INl3+sTNoaSdl/3pCTzs=; b=Npj4QU59+l+/Oo7WyqqSo1ZEML2fHvVJzeFRwIbX1AaoPYH4riF0JwlYGUJQ9keNVH zn2cYwXRz7xaJ1XC2absvX0yL/q0//8FvEk1OmLh8cgmHpXBqA+ifKfyekWrH4BgHqfv n2L+sP4YiuEEDWRn6kBzG5K3OprAkGuXIWxAowG7E9ti3Mm72USiJ3q0ot2V0hPM/r9o L+3a/UwkFH7o+/blsANzznZXV9hpq6ztv4Bx/m/RJfzWsKYPaty9WqB7icGxkD5RT3gV oCxceGIl04KHwBnC2sqPpjBngxfgVEhlmhGhQeoR1PN1g5LcBSkzuvuuxKv/drnAHhv0 dS/A== X-Received: by 10.70.135.7 with SMTP id po7mr15902662pdb.68.1439923981690; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:53:01 -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 t15sm18893456pbs.10.2015.08.18.11.52.50 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:53:00 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DDB3A3C5-F0B1-4886-92D4-683DDEA4BF73"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5 From: Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:52:50 -0700 Message-Id: References: To: jl2012@xbt.hk 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, 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 18:53:02 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_DDB3A3C5-F0B1-4886-92D4-683DDEA4BF73 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I=E2=80=99m 100% in favor of attempting a hard fork using a far less = controversial, far less risky consensus rule change. We should stop = wasting our energy arguing over stuff we don=E2=80=99t really know and = understand and can=E2=80=99t predict very well - and we should = especially avoid using a highly contentious change as our first hard = fork deployment. I=E2=80=99m also in favor of trying a small block increase before = attempting any major jumps. I don=E2=80=99t think we should be focusing = so much on long-term block size adjustment rules right now - much more = critical is to develop a hard fork mechanism and to make sure we can = deploy it. So something along these lines is probably a step in the = right direction. > On Aug 18, 2015, at 2:54 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev = wrote: >=20 > 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 --Apple-Mail=_DDB3A3C5-F0B1-4886-92D4-683DDEA4BF73 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 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJV038CAAoJEJNAI64YFENUxMsP/2CAtRyDEdkl43ETxotzTg5w Oh5n0oCH0nekVd3oSlKjd83FEDZLzKEQ0gHJJNP6m49ZtTWroWVztvqX7npnSEGT Rk4Nw8/DaGeHgck6GgJ25gxTTJvfYXS3L6z+qTpB4m/1j7w6/b29awVV3PALq07K J4eRbRA/vXQO5UwWiUWf6Aig27fWVhvUbhGVnx4Grrokdsgib3UAdfuBczh/oczF 2wdXcZ4l/7A1Brp4nH8MA79ua5L96SEvoYz+KK3aYxZSZk9WUC39M61E3535C2GK U5cC5wksyFCHRaQB55HBbwrE0VqUUpxggBl8T6GFXyUy6Pa2EDEh67Qez4a1ZQeU uU2xyGECcCHeDc335ffXURp+taYd2lmbyn4KyuOPleLfDsU03XSiZPOgpYVQqcmQ POpiGfvQNUZ0i4dSLjGl81iNCdns8hlYpRDILzfRvbOkmhSQjC/kmaGtBUMUdQ8d eKXblMY8ZEvcn1e3wEk0LwqO9cDr7WzmWC6y73sPCcBzUMNwO/HQof1Krw79cP8J v5jcx6HLrNNA4UtQRn9l99czCO8Iv8TOvg9ypnzxyDa/bFQ0T4GD21p6LVbCZF/s NdEaCmyPdiLObL/Qjik7W+lgz43fPeLYnO2yNYAQAIvdJq4DrXYm5lUHxMOLGOjb +QQDfusX0Uo/u15hvPe9 =EUJM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_DDB3A3C5-F0B1-4886-92D4-683DDEA4BF73--