jl2012 at xbt.hk [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-08-19 📝 Original message:Jorge Timón 於 ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-08-19
📝 Original message:Jorge Timón 於 2015-08-19 05:24 寫到:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:54 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at 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 successful one,
>> we
>> would have more in the future
>
> Apart from classifying all potential consensus rule changes and
> recommend a deployment path for each case, deploying an
> uncontroversial hardfork is one of the main goals of bip99:
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009837.html
>
>> 2. With a slight increase in block size, to collect data for future
>> hardforks
>
> The uncontroversial hardfork doesn't need to change the maximum block
> size: there's plenty of hardfork proposals out there, some of them
> very well tested (like the proposed hardfork in bip99).
You misunderstand my intention. The experiment is not about a random
hardfork. It's about a block size increase hardfork. The data will help
us to design further hardfork on block size.
To make it less controversial, the size must not be too big.
To allow a meaningful experiment, the size must not be too small.
Technically we could make it 1.01MB but that defeats all objectives I
listed and there is no point to do it.
That's why I suggest 1.5MB.
>> 1. Today, we all agree that some kind of block size hardfork will
>> happen on
>> t1=*1 June 2016*
>
> I disagree with this. I think it should be schedule at least a year
> after it is deployed in the newest versions.
> Maybe there's something special about June 2016 that I'm missing.
I hope the fork could be done before the halving, which (hopefully) we
may have a new bitcoin rush
There was only 2 months for the BIP50 hardfork. You may argue that's a
"bug fix" but practically there is no difference: people not fixing the
bug in 2 months was forked off. Four months of grace period (Feb to June
2016) is already a double of that.
Also, if we could have zero grace period for softfork, why must we have
a ultra-long period for hardfork? (Unless you also agree to have an
1-year grace period for softfork. I don't buy the "softfork is safer
than hardfork" theory. The recent BIP66 fork has clearly shown why it is
wrong: non-upgrading full nodes are not full nodes)
The problem is many people won't update until they must do so. So 4
months or 1 year make little difference
📝 Original message:Jorge Timón 於 2015-08-19 05:24 寫到:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:54 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at 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 successful one,
>> we
>> would have more in the future
>
> Apart from classifying all potential consensus rule changes and
> recommend a deployment path for each case, deploying an
> uncontroversial hardfork is one of the main goals of bip99:
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009837.html
>
>> 2. With a slight increase in block size, to collect data for future
>> hardforks
>
> The uncontroversial hardfork doesn't need to change the maximum block
> size: there's plenty of hardfork proposals out there, some of them
> very well tested (like the proposed hardfork in bip99).
You misunderstand my intention. The experiment is not about a random
hardfork. It's about a block size increase hardfork. The data will help
us to design further hardfork on block size.
To make it less controversial, the size must not be too big.
To allow a meaningful experiment, the size must not be too small.
Technically we could make it 1.01MB but that defeats all objectives I
listed and there is no point to do it.
That's why I suggest 1.5MB.
>> 1. Today, we all agree that some kind of block size hardfork will
>> happen on
>> t1=*1 June 2016*
>
> I disagree with this. I think it should be schedule at least a year
> after it is deployed in the newest versions.
> Maybe there's something special about June 2016 that I'm missing.
I hope the fork could be done before the halving, which (hopefully) we
may have a new bitcoin rush
There was only 2 months for the BIP50 hardfork. You may argue that's a
"bug fix" but practically there is no difference: people not fixing the
bug in 2 months was forked off. Four months of grace period (Feb to June
2016) is already a double of that.
Also, if we could have zero grace period for softfork, why must we have
a ultra-long period for hardfork? (Unless you also agree to have an
1-year grace period for softfork. I don't buy the "softfork is safer
than hardfork" theory. The recent BIP66 fork has clearly shown why it is
wrong: non-upgrading full nodes are not full nodes)
The problem is many people won't update until they must do so. So 4
months or 1 year make little difference