From: jl2012@xbt•hk
To: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork?
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 06:34:38 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4e57154a051f182bf9c4f939a61acad3@xbt.hk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDrMome0xZGvPTYr9DaFJt=Si0Lmv=VTa4ydd4Bj6ARTcw@mail.gmail.com>
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@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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-19 10:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-18 9:54 jl2012
2015-08-18 11:57 ` Micha Bailey
2015-08-18 18:52 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-18 20:48 ` Danny Thorpe
2015-08-18 20:51 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-18 21:06 ` Danny Thorpe
2015-08-18 21:17 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-18 21:39 ` Danny Thorpe
2015-08-19 9:29 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-19 10:14 ` odinn
2015-08-19 11:06 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-19 11:25 ` odinn
2015-08-19 15:22 ` jl2012
2015-08-19 15:48 ` Tier Nolan
2015-08-19 15:25 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-19 17:30 ` Danny Thorpe
2015-08-19 18:33 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-18 22:51 ` Ahmed Zsales
2015-08-19 2:53 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-19 9:24 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-19 10:34 ` jl2012 [this message]
2015-08-19 10:53 ` Jorge Timón
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=4e57154a051f182bf9c4f939a61acad3@xbt.hk \
--to=jl2012@xbt$(echo .)hk \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
/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