From: Cameron Garnham <da2ce7@gmail•com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Mechanics of a hard fork
Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 11:12:22 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <554C2996.5030509@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBg4+Hj9z6NfHMyqv=PPKpYxCGP-5RcxJFfocfUajgYGxA@mail.gmail.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
While being in the Bitcoin community for a long time, I haven't been
so directly involved in the development. However I wish to suggest a
different pre-hard-fork soft-fork approach:
Set a 'block size cap' in the similar same way as we set difficulty.
Every 2016 blocks take the average size of the blocks and multiply the
size by 1.5x, rejecting blocks that are larger than this size, for the
next 2016 period.
I would of-course suggest that we keep the limits at min 100kb and max
(initially) 990kb (not 1mb on purpose, as this should become the new
limit), rounding up to the nearest 10kb.
A: we don't have pressure at the 1mb limit, (we reduce the limit in a
flexible manner to 990kb).
B: we can upgrade the network to XYZ hard-limit, then slowly raze the
soft-limit after being sure the network, as-a-whole is ready.
If we on-day remove the block-size limit, this rule will stop a rouge
miner from making 10mb, or 100mb blocks, or 1gb blocks.
This could be implemented by the miners without breaking any of the
clients, and would tend to produce a better dynamic fee pressure.
This will give the mechanics to the miners to create consensus to
agree what block-sizes they believe are best for the network, and
allows the block-sizes to dynamically grow in response to larger demand.
On 5/8/2015 10:35 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> On May 7, 2015 3:08 PM, "Roy Badami" <roy@gnomon•org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:49:28PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
>>> I would not modify my node if the change introduced a perpetual
>>> 100 BTC subsidy per block, even if 99% of miners went along
>>> with it.
>>
>> Surely, in that scenario Bitcoin is dead. If the fork you prefer
>> has only 1% of the hash power it is trivially vulnerably not just
>> to a 51% attack but to a 501% attack, not to mention the fact
>> that you'd only be getting one block every 16 hours.
>
> Yes, indeed, Bitcoin would be dead if this actually happens. But
> that is still where the power lies: before anyone (miners or
> others) would think about trying such a change, they would need to
> convince people and be sure they will effectively modify their
> code.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
>
>
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable
> Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM
> Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development
> mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iF4EAREIAAYFAlVMKZYACgkQBJ8cMDO159aTiQEApTITEBrhE1DRbj/w+GncNeqB
0hGvmIBa1z0hGww0kaMBAOhxjn/K5leRJgdt1fKhNEDKKHdeCOIX3QRgry90D3NO
=p0+H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-08 3:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-07 20:00 Roy Badami
2015-05-07 21:24 ` Tier Nolan
2015-05-07 21:42 ` Roy Badami
2015-05-07 21:49 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-05-07 22:08 ` Roy Badami
2015-05-08 2:16 ` Adam Back
2015-05-08 2:35 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-05-08 3:12 ` Cameron Garnham [this message]
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=554C2996.5030509@gmail.com \
--to=da2ce7@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/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