Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YqSRL-0004Ex-D6 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 20:30:39 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gnomon.org.uk designates 93.93.131.22 as permitted sender) client-ip=93.93.131.22; envelope-from=roy@gnomon.org.uk; helo=darla.gnomon.org.uk; Received: from darla.gnomon.org.uk ([93.93.131.22]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YqSRJ-0002Wd-84 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 20:30:39 +0000 Received: from darla.gnomon.org.uk (localhost.gnomon.org.uk [127.0.0.1]) by darla.gnomon.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id t47K0NBg063822 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 7 May 2015 21:00:29 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from roy@darla.gnomon.org.uk) Received: (from roy@localhost) by darla.gnomon.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.1/Submit) id t47K0NuB063821 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 7 May 2015 21:00:23 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from roy) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 21:00:23 +0100 From: Roy Badami To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <20150507200023.GI63100@giles.gnomon.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1YqSRJ-0002Wd-84 Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Mechanics of a hard fork X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 20:30:39 -0000 --eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline I'd love to have more discussion of exactly how a hard fork should be implemented. I think it might actually be of some value to have rough consensus on that before we get too bogged down with exactly what the proposed hard fork should do. After all, how can we debate whether a particular hard fork proposal has consensus if we haven't even decided what level of supermajority is needed to establish consensus? For instance, back in 2012 Gavin was proposing, effectively, that a hard fork should require a supermajority of 99% of miners in order to succeed: https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/2355445 More recently, Gavin has proposed that a supermoajority of only 80% of miners should be needed in order to trigger the hard fork. http://www.gavintech.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html Just now, on this list (see attached message) Gavin seems to be aluding to some mechanism for a hard fork which involves consensus of full nodes, and then a soft fork preceeding the hard fork, which I'd love to see a full explanation of. FWIW, I think 80% is far too low to establish consensus for a hard fork. I think the supermajority of miners should be sufficiently large that the rump doesn't constitute a viable coin. If you don't have that very strong level of consensus then you risk forking Bitcoin into two competing coins (and I believe we already have one exchange promissing to trade both forks as long as the blockchains are alive). As a starting point, I think 35/36th of miners (approximately 97.2%) is the minimum I would be comfortable with. It means that the rump coin will initially have an average confirmation time of 6 hours (until difficulty, very slowly, adjusts) which is probably far enough from viable that the majority of holdouts will quickly desert it too. Thoughs? roy --eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="hardfork.eml" Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on darla.gnomon.org.uk X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (lists.sourceforge.net [216.34.181.88]) by darla.gnomon.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id t47ErfmT058987 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 7 May 2015 15:53:47 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from bitcoin-development-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YqNAf-0008Kt-JP; Thu, 07 May 2015 14:53:05 +0000 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YqNAd-0008Kn-PM for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 14:53:03 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.43; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f43.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f43.google.com ([209.85.215.43]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YqNAb-0001ZG-Eq for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 14:53:03 +0000 Received: by laat2 with SMTP id t2so32521150laa.1 for ; Thu, 07 May 2015 07:52:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.205.69 with SMTP id le5mr3387649lbc.65.1431010375037; Thu, 07 May 2015 07:52:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Thu, 7 May 2015 07:52:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me> Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 10:52:54 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Mike Hearn X-Headers-End: 1YqNAb-0001ZG-Eq Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4760500443120036853==" Errors-To: bitcoin-development-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Status: RO Content-Length: 6078 --===============4760500443120036853== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3c1be12fa1505157f1144 --001a11c3c1be12fa1505157f1144 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 For reference: the blog post that (re)-started this debate, and which links to individual issues, is here: http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks In it, I asked people to email me objections I might have missed. I would still appreciate it if people do that; it is impossible to keep up with this mailing list, /r/bitcoin posts and comments, and #bitcoin-wizards and also have time to respond thoughtfully to the objections raised. I would very much like to find some concrete course of action that we can come to consensus on. Some compromise so we can tell entrepreneurs "THIS is how much transaction volume the main Bitcoin blockchain will be able to support over the next eleven years." I've been pretty clear on what I think is a reasonable compromise (a one-time increase scheduled for early next year), and I have tried to explain why I think it it is the right set of tradeoffs. There ARE tradeoffs here, and the hard question is what process do we use to decide those tradeoffs? How do we come to consensus? Is it worth my time to spend hours responding thoughtfully to every new objection raised here, or will the same thing happen that happened last year and the year before-- everybody eventually gets tired of arguing angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin, and we're left with the status quo? I AM considering contributing some version of the bigger blocksize-limit hard-fork patch to the Bitcoin-Xt fork (probably "target a hobbyist with a fast Internet connection, and assume Nelson's law to increase over time), and then encouraging merchants and exchanges and web wallets and individuals who think it strikes a reasonable balance to run it. And then, assuming it became a super-majority of nodes on the network, encourage miners to roll out a soft-fork to start producing bigger blocks and eventually trigger the hard fork. Because ultimately consensus comes down to what software people choose to run. -- -- Gavin Andresen --001a11c3c1be12fa1505157f1144 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
For reference: the blog post th= at (re)-started this debate, and which links to individual issues, is here:=
=C2=A0=C2=A0http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-= roll-out-bigger-blocks

In it, I asked people to email me objections I might h= ave missed. I would still appreciate it if people do that; it is impossible= to keep up with this mailing list, /r/bitcoin posts and comments, and #bit= coin-wizards and also have time to respond thoughtfully to the objections r= aised.

I would very much like to find some concrete course of action that we can = come to consensus on. Some compromise so we can tell entrepreneurs "TH= IS is how much transaction volume the main Bitcoin blockchain will be able = to support over the next eleven years."

I've been pretty cl= ear on what I think is a reasonable compromise (a one-time increase schedul= ed for early next year), and I have tried to explain why I think it it is t= he right set of tradeoffs.

There ARE tradeoffs here, and the hard question is wha= t process do we use to decide those tradeoffs?=C2=A0 How do we come to cons= ensus? Is it worth my time to spend hours responding thoughtfully to every = new objection raised here, or will the same thing happen that happened last= year and the year before-- everybody eventually gets tired of arguing ange= ls-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin, and we're left with the status quo?

I AM con= sidering contributing some version of the bigger blocksize-limit hard-fork = patch to the Bitcoin-Xt fork (probably =C2=A0"target a hobbyist with a= fast Internet connection, and assume Nelson's law to increase over tim= e), and then encouraging merchants and exchanges and web wallets and indivi= duals who think it strikes a reasonable balance to run it.

And then, assuming it= became a super-majority of nodes on the network, encourage miners to roll = out a soft-fork to start producing bigger blocks and eventually trigger the= hard fork.

Because ultimately consensus comes down to what software people choos= e to run.

--
--
Gavin Andresen

--001a11c3c1be12fa1505157f1144-- --===============4760500443120036853== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y --===============4760500443120036853== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development --===============4760500443120036853==-- --eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz--