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
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <roy@gnomon.org.uk>) id 1YzW7D-0007bL-Vq
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 01 Jun 2015 20:15:19 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.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-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YzW7C-0000s5-Ab
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 01 Jun 2015 20:15:19 +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 t51KF4uI060863
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
Mon, 1 Jun 2015 21:15:09 +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 t51KF3Di060862;
Mon, 1 Jun 2015 21:15:03 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from roy)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 21:15:03 +0100
From: Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150601201503.GF13473@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
References: <CAE28kUT61qYxqV0mOqw5Dan=eMiCvnG2SnsAeWzOWTxwLydyeQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T2hfpts5y_M6PdDcxmq9Q2smesJ0Nmp9a9iyPD_MoPC9g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE28kUTZV3YsaSCX2d5YwLetnf=f+bOWGrwxLXdZFywTZ=+Pjg@mail.gmail.com>
<CALC81CNq-GK5q6R4bmgHL5_Ej2+cZrtQMMLVmuhvMxkZokM3hQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE28kUQr+kUPak67tcNQGGscUXtJiD1LiXfjdD8_LMUWyVdR5w@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP12WAcUOJp5UYg4pfWL7_4WiAHWWZAoaxAb5xB+qAP4Xg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFzgq-ykeMeWF-ndgSm9upHTe8j6ZFYhBQjFs_WSz1oVd29j7g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFzgq-x+-s_Nbt4z-C4SWQbHdPr159AmL2JvpP0zg1axM+Vwcw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T2aEvPs68pQA-KrtaDQFcTTtiB36eqKAcJRkiOFQr6WsA@mail.gmail.com>
<20150601200149.GE13473@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150601200149.GE13473@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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
X-Headers-End: 1YzW7C-0000s5-Ab
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 20:15:20 -0000
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 09:01:49PM +0100, Roy Badami wrote:
> > What do other people think? Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get
> > consensus? Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet
> > Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years? (I think predictability is
> > REALLY important).
>
> TL;DR: Personally I'm in favour of doing something relatively
> uncontroversial (say, a simple increase in the block size to something
> in the 4-8GB range) with no further increases without a further hard
> fork.
And the other bit I should have added to my TL;DR:
If we end up spending a significant proportion of the next 20 years
discussing the then _next_ hard fork, that's a *good* thing, not a
*bad* thing. Hard forks need to become, if not entirely routine, then
certainly less scary. A sequence of (relatively) uncontroversial hard
forks over time is way more likely to gain consensus than a single
hard fork that attempts to set a schedule for block size increases out
to 2035. IMHO.
>
> I'm not sure how relevent Nielsen's Law really is. The only relevent
> data points Nielsen has really boil down to a law about how the speed
> of his cable modem connection has changed during the period 1998-2014.
>
> Interesting though that is, it's not hugely relevent to
> bandwidth-intensive operations like running a full node. The problem
> is he's only looking at the actual speed of his connection in Mbps,
> not the amount of data usage in GB/month that his provider permits -
> and there's no particular reason to expect that both of those two
> figures follow the same curve. In particular, we're more interested
> in the cost of backhaul and IP transit (which is what drives the
> GB/month figure) than we are in improvements in DOCSIS technology,
> which have little relevence to node operators even on cable modem, and
> none to any other kind of full node operator, be it on DSL or in a
> datacentre.
>
> More importantly, I also think a scheduled ramp up is an unnecessary
> complication. Why do we need to commit now to future block size
> increases perhaps years into the future? I'd rather schedule an
> uncontroversial hard fork now (if such thing is possible) even if
> there's a very real expectation - even an assumption - that by the
> time the fork has taken place, it's already time to start discussing
> the next one. Any curve or schedule of increases that stretches years
> into the future is inevitably going to be controversial - and more so
> the further into the future it stretches - simply because the
> uncertainties around the Bitcoin landscape are going to be greater the
> further ahead we look.
>
> If a simple increase from 1GB to 4GB or 8GB will solve the problem for
> now, why not do that? Yes, it's quite likely we'll have to do it
> again, but we'll be able to make that decision in the light of the
> 2016 or 2017 landscape and can again make a simple, hopefully
> uncontroversial, increase in the limit at that time.
>
> So, with the proviso that I think this is all bike shedding, if I had
> to pick my favourite colour for the bike shed, it would be to schedule
> a hard fork that increases the 1GB limit (to something in the 4-8GB
> range) but with no further increases without a further hard fork.
>
> Personally I think trying to pick the best value of the 2035 block
> size now is about as foolish as trying to understand now the economics
> of Bitcoin mining many halvings hence.
>
> NB: this is not saying that I think we shouldn't go above 8GB in the
> relatively foreseeable future; quite the contrary, I strongly expect
> that we will. I just don't see the need to pick the 2020 block size
> now when we can easily make a far better informed decision as to the
> 2020 block size in 2018 or even 2019.
>
> As to knowing what the block size is going to be for the next 20 years
> being "REALLY important"? 100% disagree. I also think it's
> impossible, because even if you manage to get consensus on a block
> size increase schedule that stretches out to 2035 (and my prediction
> is you won't) the reality is that that block size schedule will have
> been modified by a future hard fork long before we get to 2035.
>
> What I personally think is REALLY important is that the Bitcoin
> community demonstrates an ability to react appropriately to changing
> requirements and conditions - and we'll only be able to react to those
> conditions when we know what they are! My expectation is that there
> will be several (hopefully _relatively_ uncontroversial) scheduled
> hard forks between now and 2035, and each of those will be discussed
> in suitable detail before being agreed. And that's as it should be.
>
> roy
|
