1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80498C8F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 19:56:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730B7623
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 19:56:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c] (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBD5B38A0DEF;
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 19:56:19 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan;
t=1573502184; bh=8XXWx//qWifuoQi7q2XgnhjcUEZC0N8Rb7MgzEHOKv0=;
h=From:To:Subject:Date:Cc:References:In-Reply-To;
b=ao/7BpF8Z2P9OjpUA5MPn/eNZ0wadGjaXdT7CaLTnt71lTVEAhbDSA4aBJkNzBt8s
Fgh+s7wvBVnffkmos7YW70qyDNHDSd4T1gwF86cPABC2PuYRu0EULEUaCvvRN6l0mE
1KQNouIaz90cX9kwBRzVlscaL9C503wPwGbzBvMA=
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Hampus =?utf-8?q?Sj=C3=B6berg?= <hampus.sjoberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 19:56:15 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
References: <CAN+Of7A9pmrhEma49cQ0eP7vn50WxFemAEvztFxhgX2om_8Dpw@mail.gmail.com>
<201911111647.06200.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAFMkqK8fuB0BSpVsSnzgBv1WkZx_8Wqi4BQ6dL95PeGExM1nHQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFMkqK8fuB0BSpVsSnzgBv1WkZx_8Wqi4BQ6dL95PeGExM1nHQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-KMail-QuotePrefix: >
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <201911111956.16782.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamic MaxBlockSize - 3 Byte Solution
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: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 19:56:26 -0000
On Monday 11 November 2019 17:10:16 Hampus Sj=C3=B6berg wrote:
> > It ISN'T low right now...
>
> I agree, but I don't think it's a good idea to softfork it to lower than =
4M
> WU though, and I don't think we need to;
> hopefully when exchanges start using Lightning or Liquid, avg blocksize
> will go down.
Not likely, so long as spam continues to pad blocks full.
> > Extension blocks are not softforks, and are unreasonably convoluted for
> no
> real gain. When the time comes, the block size should be increased only
> using
> a hardfork.
>
> It depends on how you define soft and hardforks, I suspect you don't see
> extension blocks as a softforks because old nodes won't maintain a correct
> UTXO set.
> I think an extension block is a softfork because old nodes will still be
> able to follow the mainchain.
Softforks leave old nodes *working*, so yes, maintaining the correct UTXO=20
state.
Simply "following" is meaningless, as even soft-hardforks are "followed".
> I don't know if a blocksize increase hardfork will get consensus as the
> idea has been ruined by all malicious hijack attempts we've seen over the
> years.
If there isn't consensus, then it shouldn't be done, period.
Luke
|
