From: joe2015@openmailbox•org
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] An implementation of BIP102 as a softfork.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:46:01 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6fc10e581a81abb76be5cd49275ebf48@openmailbox.org> (raw)
Below is a proof-of-concept implementation of BIP102 as a softfork:
https://github.com/ZoomT/bitcoin/tree/2015_2mb_blocksize
https://github.com/jgarzik/bitcoin/compare/2015_2mb_blocksize...ZoomT:2015_2mb_blocksize?diff=split&name=2015_2mb_blocksize
BIP102 is normally a hardfork. The softfork version (unofficial
codename BIP102s) uses the idea described here:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012073.html
The basic idea is that post-fork blocks are constructed in such a way
they can be mapped to valid blocks under the pre-fork rules. BIP102s
is a softfork in the sense that post-fork miners are still creating a
valid chain under the old rules, albeit indirectly.
From the POV of non-upgraded clients, BIP102s circumvents the
block-size limit by moving transaction validation data "outside" of
the block. This is a similar trick used by Segregated Witness and
Extension Blocks (both softfork proposals).
From the POV of upgraded clients, the block layout is unchanged,
except:
- A larger 2MB block-size limit (=BIP102);
- The header Merkle root has a new (backwards compatible)
interpretation;
- The coinbase encodes the Merkle root of the remaining txs.
Aside from this, blocks maintain their original format, i.e. a block
header followed by a vector of transactions. This keeps the
implementation simple, and is distinct from SW and EB.
Since BIP102s is a softfork it means that:
- A miner majority (e.g. 75%, 95%) force miner consensus (100%). This
is not true for a hardfork.
- Fraud risk is significantly reduced (6-conf unlikely depending on
activation threshold).
This should address some of the concerns with deploying a block-size
increase using a hardfork.
Notes:
- The same basic idea could be adapted to any of the other proposals
(BIP101, 2-4-8, BIP202, etc.).
- I used Jeff Garzik's BIP102 implementation which is incomplete (?).
The activation logic is left unchanged.
- I am not a Bitcoin dev so hopefully no embarrassing mistakes in my
code :-(
--joe
next reply other threads:[~2015-12-30 5:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-30 5:46 joe2015 [this message]
2015-12-30 10:33 ` Marco Falke
2015-12-30 16:27 ` joe2015
[not found] ` <CAKJqnrE7W8aRgracL1cy_hBLWpVsTAQL4qg4ViSP9aCHvM1yvA@mail.gmail.com>
2016-01-03 3:51 ` joe2015
2016-01-04 18:04 ` Nick ODell
2016-01-05 1:26 ` joe2015
2016-01-12 3:58 ` joe2015
2015-12-30 13:29 ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-30 13:57 ` Marcel Jamin
2015-12-30 14:19 ` Peter Todd
2015-12-30 14:31 ` Peter Todd
2015-12-30 15:00 ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-30 11:16 Martijn Meijering
2015-12-30 14:28 ` Peter Todd
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=6fc10e581a81abb76be5cd49275ebf48@openmailbox.org \
--to=joe2015@openmailbox$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(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