path: root/f7/b39b4863aac5931d4792b1e86654a82d933d6f

Return-Path: <danny.thorpe@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A059486
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:06:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-oi0-f44.google.com (mail-oi0-f44.google.com
	[209.85.218.44])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49F08106
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:06:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by oiew67 with SMTP id w67so89693656oie.2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type;
	bh=bdAtTb1c7/ywSy6g97JOTmE4Se5lkCMshkvF8rCCpkM=;
	b=KKYtqJlp9FycMiHfeoNdCDzrV2e39AFMn4SDhkkbf0elB0nlWRWdQyoPmBzwLjLgsX
	VXCNqxrKLirL2hKI+r8FRp1LUkjp+plv4CnrCpUOKE6Mna9THBQlZsI/zd7HrxOgk2Wr
	PKLI2zG/P7c9JoQDWZ3PZ/CGCcOmj5DOAIg3E+5bP+yJVB4IsLHlJjpnobeGEco/IxOq
	SNb92gneaCMqXomSMbLKCh5Q62NuLCIPbQg0JRCxMII3NjivsuyBVUcYgTzLI7hjR6Ob
	A2jhAHqGAqUTS1z5QgFTZSQsseg7h2579+AltckEaGT7kHJqE2UvfREM2x3D3cky57Ea
	fWgg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.186.132 with SMTP id k126mr7414065oif.60.1439931965701; 
	Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.134.78 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E9543641-9D73-4A00-9CB3-FAB62BFB490E@gmail.com>
References: <d17549688c0c747b2077c1f6f96b6445@xbt.hk>
	<CAJN5wHV-qyOcEw5spQc74nT7_b29WMiDTmi4Jj0ri_rGCQz2ng@mail.gmail.com>
	<E9543641-9D73-4A00-9CB3-FAB62BFB490E@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:06:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJN5wHXRwQZ6YmiZiCE9Gx4d-3FTzy1Zv7i2noia0mwtRwVL+w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Danny Thorpe <danny.thorpe@gmail.com>
To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cd852510734051d9c490c
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an
 experimental hardfork?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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, 18 Aug 2015 21:06:07 -0000

--001a113cd852510734051d9c490c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ya, so?  All that means is that the experiment might reach the hard fork
tipping point faster than mainnet would. Verifying that the network can
handle such transitions, and how larger blocks affect the network, is the
point of testing.

And when I refer to testnet, I mean the public global testnet blockchain,
not in-house isolated networks like testnet-in-a-box.

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:

> Problem is if you know most of the people running the testnet personally
> (as is pretty much the case with many current testnets) then the deployme=
nt
> amounts to =E2=80=9Chey guys, let=E2=80=99s install the new version=E2=80=
=9D
>
> On Aug 18, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Danny Thorpe via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Deploying experimental code onto the "live" bitcoin blockchain seems
> unnecessarily risky.  Why not deploy a blocksize limit experiment for lon=
g
> term trials using testnet instead?
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:54 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> As I understand, there is already a consensus among core dev that block
>> size should/could be raised. The remaining questions are how, when, how
>> much, and how fast. These are the questions for the coming Bitcoin
>> Scalability Workshops but immediate consensus in these issues are not
>> guaranteed.
>>
>> Could we just stop the debate for a moment, and agree to a scheduled
>> experimental hardfork?
>>
>> Objectives (by order of importance):
>>
>> 1. The most important objective is to show the world that reaching
>> consensus for a Bitcoin hardfork is possible. If we could have a success=
ful
>> one, we would have more in the future
>>
>> 2. With a slight increase in block size, to collect data for future
>> hardforks
>>
>> 3. To slightly relieve the pressure of full block, without minimal
>> adverse effects on network performance
>>
>> With the objectives 1 and 2 in mind, this is to NOT intended to be a
>> kick-the-can-down-the-road solution. The third objective is more like a
>> side effect of this experiment.
>>
>>
>> Proposal (parameters in ** are my recommendations but negotiable):
>>
>> 1. Today, we all agree that some kind of block size hardfork will happen
>> on t1=3D*1 June 2016*
>>
>> 2. If no other consensus could be reached before t2=3D*1 Feb 2016*, we w=
ill
>> adopt the backup plan
>>
>> 3. The backup plan is: t3=3D*30 days* after m=3D*80%* of miner approval,=
 but
>> not before t1=3D*1 June 2016*, the block size is increased to s=3D*1.5MB=
*
>>
>> 4. If the backup plan is adopted, we all agree that a better solution
>> should be found before t4=3D*31 Dec 2017*.
>>
>> Rationale:
>>
>> t1 =3D 1 June 2016 is chosen to make sure everyone have enough time to
>> prepare for a hardfork. Although we do not know what actually will happe=
n
>> but we know something must happen around that moment.
>>
>> t2 =3D 1 Feb 2016 is chosen to allow 5 more months of negotiations (and =
2
>> months after the workshops). If it is successful, we don't need to activ=
ate
>> the backup plan
>>
>> t3 =3D 30 days is chosen to make sure every full nodes have enough time =
to
>> upgrade after the actual hardfork date is confirmed
>>
>> t4 =3D 31 Dec 2017 is chosen, with 1.5 year of data and further debate,
>> hopefully we would find a better solution. It is important to acknowledg=
e
>> that the backup plan is not a final solution
>>
>> m =3D 80%: We don't want a very small portion of miners to have the powe=
r
>> to veto a hardfork, while it is important to make sure the new fork is
>> secured by enough mining power. 80% is just a compromise.
>>
>> s =3D 1.5MB. As the 1MB cap was set 5 years ago, there is no doubt that =
all
>> types of technology has since improved by >50%. I don't mind making it a
>> bit smaller but in that case not much valuable data could be gathered an=
d
>> the second objective of this experiment may not be archived.
>>
>> --------------------
>>
>> If the community as a whole could agree with this experimental hardfork,
>> we could announce the plan on bitcoin.org and start coding of the patch
>> immediately. At the same time, exploration for a better solution continu=
es.
>> If no further consensus could be reached, a new version of Bitcoin Core
>> with the patch will be released on or before 1 Feb 2016 and everyone wil=
l
>> be asked to upgrade immediately.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>

--001a113cd852510734051d9c490c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Ya, so?=C2=A0 =
All that means is that the experiment might reach the hard fork tipping poi=
nt faster than mainnet would. Verifying that the network can handle such tr=
ansitions, and how larger blocks affect the network, is the point of testin=
g.<div><br></div><div>And when I refer to testnet, I mean the public global=
 testnet blockchain, not in-house isolated networks like testnet-in-a-box.<=
/div></div><div class=3D"yj6qo ajU" style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><div id=3D":=
of" class=3D"ajR" tabindex=3D"0"><img class=3D"ajT" src=3D"https://ssl.gsta=
tic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif" style=3D"opacity: 0.3;"></div=
></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
ue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Eric Lombrozo <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:elombrozo@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">elombrozo@gmail.com</a>&gt;<=
/span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:bre=
ak-word">Problem is if you know most of the people running the testnet pers=
onally (as is pretty much the case with many current testnets) then the dep=
loyment amounts to =E2=80=9Chey guys, let=E2=80=99s install the new version=
=E2=80=9D<div><div class=3D"h5"><div><br><div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><di=
v>On Aug 18, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Danny Thorpe via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"=
mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev=
@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br><div><div dir=3D"ltr">De=
ploying experimental code onto the &quot;live&quot; bitcoin blockchain seem=
s unnecessarily risky.=C2=A0 Why not deploy a blocksize limit experiment fo=
r long term trials using testnet instead?</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><=
br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:54 AM, jl2012 via b=
itcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxf=
oundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&=
gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 =
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">As I understand, there =
is already a consensus among core dev that block size should/could be raise=
d. The remaining questions are how, when, how much, and how fast. These are=
 the questions for the coming Bitcoin Scalability Workshops but immediate c=
onsensus in these issues are not guaranteed.<br>
<br>
Could we just stop the debate for a moment, and agree to a scheduled experi=
mental hardfork?<br>
<br>
Objectives (by order of importance):<br>
<br>
1. The most important objective is to show the world that reaching consensu=
s for a Bitcoin hardfork is possible. If we could have a successful one, we=
 would have more in the future<br>
<br>
2. With a slight increase in block size, to collect data for future hardfor=
ks<br>
<br>
3. To slightly relieve the pressure of full block, without minimal adverse =
effects on network performance<br>
<br>
With the objectives 1 and 2 in mind, this is to NOT intended to be a kick-t=
he-can-down-the-road solution. The third objective is more like a side effe=
ct of this experiment.<br>
<br>
<br>
Proposal (parameters in ** are my recommendations but negotiable):<br>
<br>
1. Today, we all agree that some kind of block size hardfork will happen on=
 t1=3D*1 June 2016*<br>
<br>
2. If no other consensus could be reached before t2=3D*1 Feb 2016*, we will=
 adopt the backup plan<br>
<br>
3. The backup plan is: t3=3D*30 days* after m=3D*80%* of miner approval, bu=
t not before t1=3D*1 June 2016*, the block size is increased to s=3D*1.5MB*=
<br>
<br>
4. If the backup plan is adopted, we all agree that a better solution shoul=
d be found before t4=3D*31 Dec 2017*.<br>
<br>
Rationale:<br>
<br>
t1 =3D 1 June 2016 is chosen to make sure everyone have enough time to prep=
are for a hardfork. Although we do not know what actually will happen but w=
e know something must happen around that moment.<br>
<br>
t2 =3D 1 Feb 2016 is chosen to allow 5 more months of negotiations (and 2 m=
onths after the workshops). If it is successful, we don&#39;t need to activ=
ate the backup plan<br>
<br>
t3 =3D 30 days is chosen to make sure every full nodes have enough time to =
upgrade after the actual hardfork date is confirmed<br>
<br>
t4 =3D 31 Dec 2017 is chosen, with 1.5 year of data and further debate, hop=
efully we would find a better solution. It is important to acknowledge that=
 the backup plan is not a final solution<br>
<br>
m =3D 80%: We don&#39;t want a very small portion of miners to have the pow=
er to veto a hardfork, while it is important to make sure the new fork is s=
ecured by enough mining power. 80% is just a compromise.<br>
<br>
s =3D 1.5MB. As the 1MB cap was set 5 years ago, there is no doubt that all=
 types of technology has since improved by &gt;50%. I don&#39;t mind making=
 it a bit smaller but in that case not much valuable data could be gathered=
 and the second objective of this experiment may not be archived.<br>
<br>
--------------------<br>
<br>
If the community as a whole could agree with this experimental hardfork, we=
 could announce the plan on <a href=3D"http://bitcoin.org/" rel=3D"noreferr=
er" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin.org</a> and start coding of the patch immedia=
tely. At the same time, exploration for a better solution continues. If no =
further consensus could be reached, a new version of Bitcoin Core with the =
patch will be released on or before 1 Feb 2016 and everyone will be asked t=
o upgrade immediately.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
_______________________________________________<br>bitcoin-dev mailing list=
<br><a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bla=
nk">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br><a href=3D"https://lists.l=
inuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" target=3D"_blank">https://=
lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br></div></block=
quote></div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a113cd852510734051d9c490c--