From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>
To: jl2012@xbt•hk
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 12:53:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpce_5CCeAGFqqDZvkC6aV9p-cU15OrG4PjMODFBKY45Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4e57154a051f182bf9c4f939a61acad3@xbt.hk>
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:34 PM, <jl2012@xbt•hk> wrote:
> You misunderstand my intention. The experiment is not about a random
> hardfork. It's about a block size increase hardfork.
One of your goals is "show the world that reaching consensus for a
Bitcoin hardfork is possible", right?
BIP99 can achieve that goal without touching the block size (thus
probably less controversial).
> The data will help us
> to design further hardfork on block size.
The data can be collected using testchains. See #6382
> To make it less controversial, the size must not be too big.
That makes the data less interesting, doesn't it?
> 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.
It wouldn't defeat the "show the world that reaching consensus for a
Bitcoin hardfork is possible" objective though. But again, we don't
need to touch the block size to achieve that goal.
> That's why I suggest 1.5MB.
But that wouldn't be uncontroversial (unless it was accompanied with
data that somehow quantifies the risks, in which case maybe another
bigger size is acceptable).
>>> 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.
Yes, emergency hardforks are a different case as explained in BIP99's draft.
In any case, " we all agree that some kind of block size hardfork will
happen on June 2016" it's clearly false since I can find many
counter-examples besides myself.
> 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)
I don't think giving 1 year for "everybody in the world" to upgrade is
an "ultra-long" period.
I'm proposing 5 years for the hardfork proposed in bip99.
I do think softforks are safer than hardforks, that doesn't mean
softforks don't have serious risks as well.
> The problem is many people won't update until they must do so. So 4 months
> or 1 year make little difference
I disagree with this conclusion as well (it doesn't follow from the
first sentence, non sequitur).
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-19 10:53 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
2015-08-19 10:53 ` Jorge Timón [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=CABm2gDpce_5CCeAGFqqDZvkC6aV9p-cU15OrG4PjMODFBKY45Q@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jl2012@xbt$(echo .)hk \
/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