I'm not sure I understand the need for hard forks. We can get through this
crisis by mining pool collusion to prevent forking blocks until there is
widespread adoption of patched clients.

Proposal:

1) Patch the pre-0.8 branches to support an increased lock count, whatever
number is required to make sure that this problem never shows up again at
the current block size (I defer to Luke-Jr and gmaxwell's numbers on this).

2) Patch all branches to not *generate* blocks which trigger the lock count
limit. A larger block would still be accepted as valid, however, if it is
on the longest chain.

3) Simultaneously, provide an additional non-standard patch to mining pool
operators (>>50% network hash) *rejecting* blocks that trigger the lock
count limit. This keeps miners in collusion with each other to stay on a
'compatibility fork'.

4) At some point in the future once we've crossed an acceptable adoption
threshold, the miners remove the above patch in a coordinated way.

Does that not get us past this crisis without a hard-fork?

Mark

(Aside: I'm for BOTH raising the block-size limit and off-chain
transactions, but like it or not there are political sides to that debate
and we should keep politics out of crisis management.)


On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

> Here's a simple proposal to start discussion from...
>
> BEFORE block 262144:
> - Never make a block that, combined with the previous 4 blocks, results in
> over 4500 transaction modifications.
> - Reject any block that includes more than 4500 transaction modifications
> on
> its own (slight soft-fork)
> - (these rules should make older clients safe under most circumstances)
>
> FROM block 262144 to block 393216 (hard fork #1):
> - Never make, and reject any block that includes more than 24391
> transaction
> modifications on its own (this *should* be equivalent to 1 MB)
> - (this rules can make older client backports safe unless a reorg is more
> than
> 6 blocks deep)
>
> FROM block 393216 onward (hard fork #2):
> - Never make, and reject any block that includes more than 48781
> transaction
> modifications on its own (this *should* be equivalent to 2 MB)
> - Accept blocks up to 2 MB in data size
> - Discontinue support for clients prior to 0.8.1
>
> I intentionally set the block numbers conservatively to try to account for
> the
> yet-unseen ASIC upgrade.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>