path: root/66/cdce27c65af6fb3aecd75d6f49a1b665969e76

Return-Path: <jaredr26@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EA0E8D4
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:16:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f47.google.com (mail-vk0-f47.google.com
	[209.85.213.47])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46895166
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:16:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f47.google.com with SMTP id z204so10503589vkd.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 29 Mar 2017 02:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; 
	bh=f0R7NfMEwLF0PqnGu7prq3doDm5+9nz0Q+vvE/iPc4M=;
	b=JvQYf2SCvmPmAZwfi8Ycn8NirGf2u93AsbnmmnPTpFAsG4FFjYsnFJlrnLevnAVlvp
	myH2VIy/TqIbnZmJH1mxHfk/QzBIf9zbmTG5XPlq5WR2MOmhTGAvLT7x4f33qmKTCIPn
	pb/TlA0NoN6N4qGexm3MKPiPzV4Ynzd25s3TmB8iWmN02g+dGkc1FchVXcRT0/jeT5VE
	RXNx1t4lpEYbNvlr18f2CgqNrc6gKg55KSVvvgAIwMUSp7kXZvyqNJuvSvA3ObQZx9Aa
	N60oWy5QXJ/SW21DV32ywSBurYnXiqjfMJCMwJLhh+V+yDxp5aH7cHa5AJ9Rzbby+rz2
	0WyQ==
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;
	bh=f0R7NfMEwLF0PqnGu7prq3doDm5+9nz0Q+vvE/iPc4M=;
	b=ZY9G8hIXFigRygVJCrIuYe3rj4HanvDEWbeh8LCLYAA4UDvKAYajRf9rQS7UBh3ZGk
	D1rAWGy1p43I7YQnCzSg3LIm5mTH48oBMkebzxcGsSKpuoq+wZh4NuweNU+INfaeBLr6
	2RHO8TWwMOUY4E0JxvkY2wNoaIubApvJ8Z9RuxTuB34uW81YFWtS5ZY3CN0ONw0C1Ptr
	43EbRNVnG0ENV/BxIWTiwollzFomqHptHUnQD4Bw7+mtw9ToCMlonRWOxMtJY+M5E1sA
	BicLojIHh6oJKznY1hAsZiIccqp7iFNGuZvVL6poTVlF4Aib2z+0H5ry5F6+vxb7mUb+
	DbfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2VFMOh2SRLAsWchPBYYDpTOYzfSEhJd2te1v6BiTXqAktjRpy4Q58zD52E3iSxXlem8jHT+4ZuGhgdow==
X-Received: by 10.176.84.209 with SMTP id q17mr6722455uaa.129.1490779004271;
	Wed, 29 Mar 2017 02:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.157.143 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 02:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAMBsKS9n7Mxd2LwXwSXUjHbBQj932QQW7-CnXe10tia6Ga0iBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFzgq-xizPMNqfvW11nUhd6HmfZu8aGjcR9fshEsf6o5HOt_dA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMBsKS8oSKS5g8UEyCu18bjzGJWpA+sJEaxBUV9FXAmXhX1ApA@mail.gmail.com>
	<RO1P152MB16424A3706E408DA163B1D95F5320@RO1P152MB1642.LAMP152.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
	<CAMBsKS9n7Mxd2LwXwSXUjHbBQj932QQW7-CnXe10tia6Ga0iBQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jared Lee Richardson <jaredr26@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 02:16:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD1TkXtv8PO5-5SNZ7uKyotMPNdx4iV44UmCwtSnFs1QTdG7yA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alphonse Pace <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045e20e2fd0587054bdb0820
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	HTML_MESSAGE, 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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:48:14 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:16:46 -0000

--f403045e20e2fd0587054bdb0820
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> I suggest you take a look at this paper: http://fc16.ifca.ai/
bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf  It may help you form opinions based in science
rather than what appears to be nothing more than a hunch.  It shows that
even 4MB is unsafe.  SegWit provides up to this limit.

I find this paper wholly unconvincing.  Firstly I note that he assumes the
price of electricity is 10c/kwh in Oct 2015.  As a miner operating and
building large farms at that time, I can guarantee you that almost no large
mines were paying anything even close to that high for electricity, even
then.  If he had performed a detailed search on the big mines he would have
found as much, or could have asked, but it seems like it was simply made
up.  Even U.S. industrial electricity prices are lower than that.

Moreover, he focuses his math almost entirely around mining, asserting in
table 1 that 98% of the "cost of processing a transaction" as being
mining.  That completely misunderstands the purpose of mining.  Miners
occasionally trivially resolve double spend conflicts, but miners are
paid(and played against eachother) for economic security against
attackers.  They aren't paid to process transactions.  Nodes process
transactions and are paid nothing to do so, and their costs are 100x more
relevant to the blocksize debate than a paper about miner costs.  Miner's
operational costs relate to economic protection formulas, not the cost of a
transaction.

He also states: "the top 10% of nodes receive a 1MB block 2.4min earlier
than the bottom 10% =E2=80=94 meaning that depending on their access to nod=
es, some
miners could obtain a significant and unfair lead over others in solving
hash puzzles."

He's using 2012-era logic of mining.  By October 2015, no miner of any size
was in the bottom 10% of node propagation.  If they were a small or medium
sized miner, they mined shares on a pool and would be at most 30 seconds
behind the pool.  Pools that didn't get blocks within 20 seconds weren't
pools for long.  If they were a huge miner, they ran their own pool with
good propagation times.  For a scientific paper, this is reading like
someone who had absolutely no idea what was really going on in the mining
world at the time.  But again, none of that relates to transaction "costs."
 Transactions cost nodes money; protecting the network costs miners money.
Miners are rewarded with fees; nodes are rewarded only by utility and price
increases.

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Juan,
>
> I suggest you take a look at this paper: http://fc16.ifca.ai/
> bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf  It may help you form opinions based in science
> rather than what appears to be nothing more than a hunch.  It shows that
> even 4MB is unsafe.  SegWit provides up to this limit.
>
> 8MB is most definitely not safe today.
>
> Whether it is unsafe or impossible is the topic, since Wang Chun proposed
> making the block size limit 32MiB.
>
>
> Wang Chun,
>
> Can you specify what meeting you are talking about?  You seem to have not
> replied on that point.  Who were the participants and what was the purpos=
e
> of this meeting?
>
> -Alphonse
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Juan Garavaglia <jg@112bit.com> wrote:
>
>> Alphonse,
>>
>>
>>
>> In my opinion if 1MB limit was ok in 2010, 8MB limit is ok on 2016 and
>> 32MB limit valid in next halving, from network, storage and CPU perspect=
ive
>> or 1MB was too high in 2010 what is possible or 1MB is to low today.
>>
>>
>>
>> If is unsafe or impossible to raise the blocksize is a different topic.
>>
>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org [mailto:
>> bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org] *On Behalf Of *Alphonse
>> Pace via bitcoin-dev
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:24 PM
>> *To:* Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
>>
>>
>>
>> What meeting are you referring to?  Who were the participants?
>>
>>
>>
>> Removing the limit but relying on the p2p protocol is not really a true
>> 32MiB limit, but a limit of whatever transport methods provide.  This ca=
n
>> lead to differing consensus if alternative layers for relaying are used.
>> What you seem to be asking for is an unbound block size (or at least
>> determined by whatever miners produce).  This has the possibility (and e=
ven
>> likelihood) of removing many participants from the network, including ma=
ny
>> small miners.
>>
>>
>>
>> 32MB in less than 3 years also appears to be far beyond limits of safety
>> which are known to exist far sooner, and we cannot expect hardware and
>> networking layers to improve by those amounts in that time.
>>
>>
>>
>> It also seems like it would be much better to wait until SegWit activate=
s
>> in order to truly measure the effects on the network from this increased
>> capacity before committing to any additional increases.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Alphonse
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> I've proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Consensus
>> but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than
>> one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I would
>> post this here again for comment.
>>
>> The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should
>> be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.
>>
>> Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its
>> limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to
>> remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in
>> the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block
>> halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is
>> the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be
>> in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.
>>
>> With this patch in core's next release, Bitcoin works just as before,
>> no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there
>> will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and
>> exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three
>> years.
>>
>> We don't yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size
>> limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like
>> BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so
>> on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core's
>> release, they all become soft fork. We'll have enough time to discuss
>> all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we
>> choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it
>> from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork.
>>
>> Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>

--f403045e20e2fd0587054bdb0820
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">&gt;=C2=A0<span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">I suggest you t=
ake a look at this paper:=C2=A0</span><a href=3D"http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoi=
n/papers/CDE+16.pdf" target=3D"_blank" style=3D"font-size:12.8px">http://fc=
16.ifca.ai/<wbr>bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf</a><span style=3D"font-size:12.8p=
x">=C2=A0=C2=A0It may help you form opinions based in science rather than w=
hat appears to be nothing more than a hunch.=C2=A0 It shows that even 4MB i=
s unsafe.=C2=A0 SegWit provides up to this limit.</span><div class=3D"gmail=
_extra"><br>I find this paper wholly unconvincing.=C2=A0 Firstly I note tha=
t he assumes the price of electricity is 10c/kwh in Oct 2015.=C2=A0 As a mi=
ner operating and building large farms at that time, I can guarantee you th=
at almost no large mines were paying anything even close to that high for e=
lectricity, even then.=C2=A0 If he had performed a detailed search on the b=
ig mines he would have found as much, or could have asked, but it seems lik=
e it was simply made up.=C2=A0 Even U.S. industrial electricity prices are =
lower than that.<br><br>Moreover, he focuses his math almost entirely aroun=
d mining, asserting in table 1 that 98% of the &quot;cost of processing a t=
ransaction&quot; as being mining.=C2=A0 That completely misunderstands the =
purpose of mining.=C2=A0 Miners occasionally trivially resolve double spend=
 conflicts, but miners are paid(and played against eachother) for economic =
security against attackers.=C2=A0 They aren&#39;t paid to process transacti=
ons.=C2=A0 Nodes process transactions and are paid nothing to do so, and th=
eir costs are 100x more relevant to the blocksize debate than a paper about=
 miner costs.=C2=A0 Miner&#39;s operational costs relate to economic protec=
tion formulas, not the cost of a transaction.<br><br>He also states: &quot;=
the top 10% of nodes receive a 1MB block 2.4min earlier than the bottom
10% =E2=80=94 meaning that depending on their access to nodes, some miners =
could
obtain a significant and unfair lead over others in solving hash puzzles.&q=
uot;<br><br>He&#39;s using 2012-era logic of mining.=C2=A0 By October 2015,=
 no miner of any size was in the bottom 10% of node propagation.=C2=A0 If t=
hey were a small or medium sized miner, they mined shares on a pool and wou=
ld be at most 30 seconds behind the pool.=C2=A0 Pools that didn&#39;t get b=
locks within 20 seconds weren&#39;t pools for long.=C2=A0 If they were a hu=
ge miner, they ran their own pool with good propagation times.=C2=A0 For a =
scientific paper, this is reading like someone who had absolutely no idea w=
hat was really going on in the mining world at the time.=C2=A0 But again, n=
one of that relates to transaction &quot;costs.&quot; =C2=A0Transactions co=
st nodes money; protecting the network costs miners money.=C2=A0 Miners are=
 rewarded with fees; nodes are rewarded only by utility and price increases=
.<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Alpho=
nse Pace via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-de=
v@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfound=
ation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding=
-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Juan,<div><br></div><div>I suggest you take a l=
ook at this paper:=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+1=
6.pdf" target=3D"_blank">http://fc16.ifca.ai/<wbr>bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf=
</a> =C2=A0It may help you form opinions based in science rather than what =
appears to be nothing more than a hunch.=C2=A0 It shows that even 4MB is un=
safe.=C2=A0 SegWit provides up to this limit.</div><div><br></div><div>8MB =
is most definitely not safe today.</div><div><br></div><div>Whether it is u=
nsafe or impossible is the topic, since Wang Chun proposed making the block=
 size limit 32MiB. =C2=A0<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><di=
v class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Wang Chun,</di=
v><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br>Can you specify what meeting you are talki=
ng about?=C2=A0 You seem to have not replied on that point.=C2=A0 Who were =
the participants and what was the purpose of this meeting?</div><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">-Alphonse</div><div><=
div class=3D"gmail-h5"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_q=
uote">On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Juan Garavaglia <span dir=3D"ltr">&=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jg@112bit.com" target=3D"_blank">jg@112bit.com</a>&gt;=
</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px=
 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">





<div lang=3D"EN-US">
<div class=3D"gmail-m_4313037861597504663m_-8711817936055089631WordSection1=
">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sa=
ns-serif">Alphonse,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sa=
ns-serif"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sa=
ns-serif">In my opinion if 1MB limit was ok in 2010, 8MB limit is ok on 201=
6 and 32MB limit valid in next halving, from network, storage and CPU persp=
ective or 1MB was too high in 2010
 what is possible or 1MB is to low today.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sa=
ns-serif"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sa=
ns-serif">If is unsafe or impossible to raise the blocksize is a different =
topic.</span>=C2=A0</p></div></div></blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,=
204);padding-left:1ex"><div lang=3D"EN-US"><div class=3D"gmail-m_4313037861=
597504663m_-8711817936055089631WordSection1"><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span s=
tyle=3D"font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span=
></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sa=
ns-serif"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sa=
ns-serif">Regards<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sa=
ns-serif"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sa=
ns-serif">Juan<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sa=
ns-serif"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sa=
ns-serif"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri=
,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-size:11pt;font-family:cali=
bri,sans-serif"> <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundatio=
n.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linu<wbr>xfoundation.org=
</a> [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.or=
g" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev-bounces@li<wbr>sts.linuxfoundation.org</a>=
]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:24 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Wang Chun &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:1240902@gmail.com" target=3D"_bl=
ank">1240902@gmail.com</a>&gt;; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion &lt;<a href=3D"=
mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev=
@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>&gt;<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week&#39;s m=
eeting<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div class=3D"gmail-m_43130378615975046=
63h5">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">What meeting are you referring to?=C2=A0 Who were th=
e participants?<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Removing the limit but relying on the p2p protocol i=
s not really a true 32MiB limit, but a limit of whatever transport methods =
provide.=C2=A0 This can lead to differing consensus if alternative layers f=
or relaying are used.=C2=A0 What you seem to
 be asking for is an unbound block size (or at least determined by whatever=
 miners produce).=C2=A0 This has the possibility (and even likelihood) of r=
emoving many participants from the network, including many small miners. =
=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">32MB in less than 3 years also appears to be far bey=
ond limits of safety which are known to exist far sooner, and we cannot exp=
ect hardware and networking layers to improve by those amounts in that time=
.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">It also seems like it would be much better to wait u=
ntil SegWit activates in order to truly measure the effects on the network =
from this increased capacity before committing to any additional increases.=
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">-Alphonse<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitc=
oin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=
=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>&gt; wrote:<u></u=
><u></u></p>
<blockquote style=3D"border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;b=
order-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4=
.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">I&#39;ve proposed this hard fork approach last year =
in Hong Kong Consensus<br>
but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than<br>
one year it seems that lots of people haven&#39;t heard of it. So I would<b=
r>
post this here again for comment.<br>
<br>
The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should<br>
be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.<br>
<br>
Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its<br>
limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to<br>
remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in<br>
the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block<br>
halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is<br>
the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be<br>
in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.<br>
<br>
With this patch in core&#39;s next release, Bitcoin works just as before,<b=
r>
no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there<br>
will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and<br>
exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three<br>
years.<br>
<br>
We don&#39;t yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size<br>
limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like<br>
BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so<br>
on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core&#39;s<br>
release, they all become soft fork. We&#39;ll have enough time to discuss<b=
r>
all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we<br>
choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it<br>
from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork.<br>
<br>
Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late.<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/b=
itcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>

</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>

--f403045e20e2fd0587054bdb0820--