path: root/0a/d0e45ca76d234ef5cec5647c3560cb6d19def7

Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C190EBC4
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 30 May 2017 22:26:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ua0-f174.google.com (mail-ua0-f174.google.com
	[209.85.217.174])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2145F1FB
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 30 May 2017 22:26:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ua0-f174.google.com with SMTP id y4so60062390uay.2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 30 May 2017 15:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
	:cc:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=syVB8Fzg9WqlsBdgr06XcjY1GeV2OUZC15wiH9CgWdo=;
	b=nJxLEitpkjMDBoeMU9LuAe7+n7te8WSwA5VALjlewOqSlx+ytjgb2vlH7gkKs6qdEI
	GA0Uzn/h86j25lSQ6luq1I1D+SpqGGJqUknmQEt4vGdIhO+Mffq65D9ccJxmpHrr5iLd
	ULXXGrO0/wOodTM76K6deyx34HoIkeGnEgj5wXYsMueljygTC9olT2+lpmzFgJBN33j7
	oe2ZpIZE5JHbwKrFIlZU5ztAgueARaJImS6dGO83TIeiQCllKrRveqoJcuY79+aZLxvZ
	Uz5uToYeS1lbbyS52BdZNRIDdyxRNkDeZH3ilmumMs3FkGflHCX2LaJloxuOq2/BxQAV
	AvtA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=syVB8Fzg9WqlsBdgr06XcjY1GeV2OUZC15wiH9CgWdo=;
	b=WyGKpd7T0I8C3jnttYAjulbF5165ZmNzxZCNa3OTKfqAp2hRfpi5Vs//MHFsk4piDa
	6gY/XfCJ9HTVY0bDjzRiwwCOW+CqMqW82n8bvBq3ssfoaG7XUbBoI1ltZt1neepoh6gQ
	QhfnKA6459SaARo95GdWzO+hx3evkaoTKY6k8yOJjjTs13OwYdDq43NB/Sy2xa+QtQHI
	cUzBuukuvyKPeTefIUo8lqPh2u3Xrn0bA6dB6NwSY3W5nBemh2YKhVUPqLuKYZmJUJV4
	jMU5e7vx65uOxifMP54UafPtmGUEXJ2Az10WEcvgvefsMo51aR+mNlZRWzubi1FTKTG4
	ZYTg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCGaDw7I8Q63fkYr7jnDeLwVKLDfIbTOGpbjbJTl0z8YTlRVxmU
	cHycKDyFptxAt723Q4EHmhNpVGcSYjtg
X-Received: by 10.176.78.161 with SMTP id l33mr9630335uah.24.1496183181107;
	Tue, 30 May 2017 15:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.52.213 with HTTP; Tue, 30 May 2017 15:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-uei5-c-Mpp_R6RrN29NTrSV+gpNd79FC3cB6QPG65sEw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201705232023.40588.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAJowKgJK9zBkVAM1NyOsjU04gvwV3zGnk+1ebfpt6rnbiKy6Og@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDpet31gEcBY6NTxEG+xA4rvg8_c79L+J=mJySGbf7Ydbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOG=w-uei5-c-Mpp_R6RrN29NTrSV+gpNd79FC3cB6QPG65sEw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 00:26:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDr2YwHZ_=Ky4BX-zVL2YcUSk_DB=Vn9iCdDvvbsHx3h+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
	RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hypothetical 2 MB hardfork to follow BIP148
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 22:26:23 -0000

My understanding is that you cannot possibly violate the 1 MB block
size rule without also violating the 4 MB weight rule.
Regarding size alone, the only check we care about if we accept segwit is:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L2891 [si=
ze4]

If that doesn't fail due to excessive non-witness data, then there's no way=
 that

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L2681 [si=
ze1]

would have failed before due to excessive non-witness data.
If I understood it correctly when I was explained, if I remember
correctly, that last check is really just an optimization or a
protection against DoS invalid blocks. If the size without any witness
data is bigger than 1/4 the max_weight, then the max_weight check is
certain to fail as well without having to look at any witness data at
that validation stage (assuming the failure is due to excessive
non-witness data).

I think you are not referring to the 1 mb size limit but to related
one for sigops:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L2704
[sigops1]

whose segwit parallel is in:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L1661
[sigops4]

I believe the situation is similar in checking before knowing anything
about the witness data just in case that's already too much. In fact,
here is clearer because MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS_COST is used for both (and
WITNESS_SCALE_FACTOR is used for the optimization case).

So what I would do in a hardfork after segwit activation would be to
simply equal MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE=3DMAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT/WITNESS_SCALE_FACTOR
for size1, and increase MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT and MAX_BLOCK_ SIGOPS_COST
proportionally for size4 and sigops4 respectively (well, the sigops
const for sigops1 as well).

If I understood segwit correctly, I believe that even though it is not
activated yet, you could remove both the size1 and sigops1 checks and
your node would still not accept invalid blocks by pre-bip141 rules,
your node would just spend more time on invalid blocks due to
currently excessive size/sigops, because it would only realize at a
later validation stage. Sorry for the redundancy about the validation
stage.

But it is not unlikely that I'm missing something. If I am wrong about
this I am spreading misinformation about segwit in several channels,
so I'm very interested in corrections to my statements in this mail.

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org> w=
rote:
> The 1MB classic block size is not redundant after segwit activation.
> Segwit prevents the quadratic hashing problems, but only for segwit
> outputs. The 1MB classic block size prevents quadratic hashing
> problems from being any worse than they are today.
>
> Mark
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> Why not simply remove the (redundant after sw activation) 1 mb size
>> limit check and increasing the weight limit without changing the
>> discount or having 2 limits?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> Personally, I would prefer if a 2MB lock-in that uses BIP103 for the ti=
ming.
>>>
>>> I think up to 20% per year can be absorbed by averages in bandwidth/CPU=
/RAM
>>> growth, of which bandwidth seems the most constraining.
>>>
>>> - Erik
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In light of some recent discussions, I wrote up this BIP for a real 2 =
MB
>>>> block
>>>> size hardfork following Segwit BIP148 activation. This is not part of =
any
>>>> agreement I am party to, nor anything of that sort. Just something to
>>>> throw
>>>> out there as a possible (and realistic) option.
>>>>
>>>> Note that I cannot recommend this to be adopted, since frankly 1 MB bl=
ocks
>>>> really are still too large, and this blunt-style hardfork quite risky =
even
>>>> with consensus. But if the community wishes to adopt (by unanimous
>>>> consensus)
>>>> a 2 MB block size hardfork, this is probably the best way to do it rig=
ht
>>>> now.
>>>> The only possible way to improve on this IMO would be to integrate it =
into
>>>> MMHF/"spoonnet" style hardfork (and/or add other unrelated-to-block-si=
ze
>>>> HF
>>>> improvements).
>>>>
>>>> I have left Author blank, as I do not intend to personally champion th=
is.
>>>> Before it may be assigned a BIP number, someone else will need to step=
 up
>>>> to
>>>> take on that role. Motivation and Rationale are blank because I do not
>>>> personally think there is any legitimate rationale for such a hardfork=
 at
>>>> this
>>>> time; if someone adopts this BIP, they should complete these sections.=
 (I
>>>> can
>>>> push a git branch with the BIP text if someone wants to fork it.)
>>>>
>>>> <pre>
>>>> BIP: ?
>>>> Layer: Consensus (hard fork)
>>>> Title: Post-segwit 2 MB block size hardfork
>>>> Author: FIXME
>>>> Comments-Summary: No comments yet.
>>>> Comments-URI: ?
>>>> Status: Draft
>>>> Type: Standards Track
>>>> Created: 2017-05-22
>>>> License: BSD-2-Clause
>>>> </pre>
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3DAbstract=3D=3D
>>>>
>>>> Legacy Bitcoin transactions are given the witness discount, and a bloc=
k
>>>> size
>>>> limit of 2 MB is imposed.
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3DCopyright=3D=3D
>>>>
>>>> This BIP is licensed under the BSD 2-clause license.
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3DSpecification=3D=3D
>>>>
>>>> Upon activation, a block size limit of 2000000 bytes is enforced.
>>>> The block weight limit remains at 4000000 WU.
>>>>
>>>> The calculation of block weight is modified:
>>>> all witness data, including both scriptSig (used by pre-segwit inputs)=
 and
>>>> segwit witness data, is measured as 1 weight-unit (WU), while all othe=
r
>>>> data
>>>> in the block is measured as 4 WU.
>>>>
>>>> The witness commitment in the generation transaction is no longer
>>>> required,
>>>> and instead the txid merkle root in the block header is replaced with =
a
>>>> hash
>>>> of:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The witness reserved value.
>>>> 2. The witness merkle root hash.
>>>> 3. The transaction ID merkle root hash.
>>>>
>>>> The maximum size of a transaction stripped of witness data is limited =
to 1
>>>> MB.
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3D=3DDeployment=3D=3D=3D
>>>>
>>>> This BIP is deployed by flag day, in the block where the median-past t=
ime
>>>> surpasses 1543503872 (2018 Nov 29 at 15:04:32 UTC).
>>>>
>>>> It is assumed that when this flag day has been reached, Segwit has bee=
n
>>>> activated via BIP141 and/or BIP148.
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3DMotivation=3D=3D
>>>>
>>>> FIXME
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3DRationale=3D=3D
>>>>
>>>> FIXME
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3DBackwards compatibility=3D=3D
>>>>
>>>> This is a hardfork, and as such not backward compatible.
>>>> It should not be deployed without consent of the entire Bitcoin commun=
ity.
>>>> Activation is scheduled for 18 months from the creation date of this B=
IP,
>>>> intended to give 6 months to establish consensus, and 12 months for
>>>> deployment.
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3DReference implementation=3D=3D
>>>>
>>>> FIXME
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev