From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
To: Andrew Johnson <andrew.johnson83@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three hardfork-related BIPs
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:14:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201701270414.18553.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAy62_JuWMQ=HMmcw8GsQSDM8S+4LJeG1GHw1OdT+mQC3H-DOA@mail.gmail.com>
On Friday, January 27, 2017 3:04:50 AM Andrew Johnson wrote:
> Comment on #1. You're dropping the blocksize limit to 300KB and only
> reaching the limit that we have in place today 7 years later?
The limit only drops all the way to 300k if it activates before 2017 April.
Considering that this requires the consensus of a hardfork, followed by a
release in software, and then actual activation by miners using BIP9, I think
it's extremely unlikely to activate by then.
But more importantly: such a drop would probably be good for the network in
the long-term. As explained in the Rationale section, 300k is necessary to
maintain our *current* IBD (first-time node sync) costs even with
technological improvements (which appear to be slowing lately).
> We're already at capacity today, surely you're not serious with this
> proposal?
We are only at capacity because the space is available below actual costs,
and/or because efficient alternatives are not yet widely supported. A
reduction of block size will likely squeeze out spam, and perhaps some
unsustainable microtransaction use, but the volume which actually *benefits
from* the blockchain's security should continue along fine. Furthermore, once
Lightning is widely implemented as well-tested, at least microtransactions are
likely to gain a huge improvement in efficiency, reducing legitimate usage of
block sizes well below 300k naturally - that is frankly when I first expect
this proposal to be seriously considered for activation (which is independent
from the consensus to include support for it in nodes).
> When you promised code for a hard forking block size increase in the HK
> agreement I don't believe that a decrease first was made apparent. While
> not technically in violation of the letter of the agreement, I think this
> is a pretty obviously not in the spirit of it.
I did not mention the HK "roundtable", because this is indeed not in the
spirit of what we set out to do, and do not wish this to be interpreted as
some kind of slap in the face of the honest participants of that discussion.
This proposal is, however, the best I am currently able to honestly recommend
that meets the hard criteria outlined at Hong Kong a year ago. (Continued work
on the MMHF/SHF concept may eventually deliver a better solution, but it is
not yet ready.)
Luke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-27 4:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-27 1:06 Luke Dashjr
[not found] ` <CAAy62_L-mLhokVy4_WeLBVnxM0Y76dtFBaaDrRvQozxw=J1Ctw@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAAy62_+1OjF3V5g4wpOyW0KtNGodddJu_cxOfG-f+8LB7D=rPA@mail.gmail.com>
2017-01-27 3:04 ` Andrew Johnson
2017-01-27 4:14 ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
[not found] ` <CAAy62_LHtrx7k73kznMpPvheA--0T9YiHkjHArf2KK0Qt+ViUg@mail.gmail.com>
2017-01-27 6:13 ` Andrew Johnson
[not found] ` <CAMZUoKnxqxvPQehdWo1ZaHB-1-od4cHvJRDTmF5x7ty1CdLbUQ@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAMZUoK=eb3jgA7Rwt38tvZt0tYk7gRVPc_2=HUWg1L_vaD93uw@mail.gmail.com>
2017-01-27 20:34 ` Russell O'Connor
2017-01-27 20:47 ` Greg Sanders
2017-01-27 21:28 ` Christian Decker
2017-01-27 23:53 ` Andrew Johnson
2017-01-28 4:03 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-01-28 10:36 ` Natanael
2017-01-28 18:29 ` Peter Todd
2017-01-29 19:15 ` Tom Harding
2017-01-29 19:37 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-02-11 15:26 ` Staf Verhaegen
2017-01-29 19:39 ` David Vorick
2017-01-28 19:43 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-01-28 21:54 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-06 16:24 ` mbtc-dev
2017-02-07 20:32 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-01-28 18:22 ` Peter Todd
2017-01-27 4:21 ` Johnson Lau
2017-01-27 18:54 ` t. khan
2017-01-27 12:12 Daniele Pinna
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201701270414.18553.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=andrew.johnson83@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox