Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Block size doubles at each reward halving with max block size of 32M

From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail•com>
To: John Sacco <johnsock@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Block size doubles at each reward halving with max block size of 32M
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 07:49:02 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADJgMzu+69bMP4mJZ4pUA1JLc8GXaUQfORGzTDivnLwQ8Zw9+A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEkt4Xsav9i2x26YhAPqr_b0on2SCkBCNwYv=Ym4v5HBLQzySA@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4615 bytes --]

> * 2 MB, height 210,000 < 420,000; (when 75% of last 1,000 blocks signal
support)

This doesnt give anyone a chance to upgrade and would cause a hard fork the
moment a miner created a >1MB block. Flag day (hard fork) upgrades must
start the change at a sufficient time in the future (greater than the
current block height) to give all nodes the chance to upgrade.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 3:37 AM, John Sacco via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I like your suggestion for the continuity and it gets us up to 2 MB in the
> shorter term. Also I just noticed the math error.
>
> Here is a revised spec (incorporating suggestions from Chun Wang):
>
> Specification
>
> * 1 MB, height < 210,000;
> * 2 MB, height 210,000 < 420,000; (when 75% of last 1,000 blocks signal
> support)
> * 4 MB, height 420,000 < 630,000; (year 2016)
> * 8 MB, height 630,000 < 840,000; (year ~2020)
> * 16 MB, height 840,000 < 1,050,000; (year ~2024)
> * 32 MB, height >= 1,050,000. (year ~2028)
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail•com> wrote:
>
>> How about these specs:
>> * 1 MB, height < 210000;
>> * 2 MB, 210000 <= height < 420000;
>> * 4 MB, 420000 <= height < 630000;
>> * 8 MB, 630000 <= height < 840000;
>> * 16 MB, 840000 <= height < 1050000;
>> * 32 MB, height >= 1050000.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:47 AM, John Sacco via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > Hi Devs,
>> >
>> >
>> > Please consider the draft proposal below for peer review.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> >
>> > BIP
>> >
>> >   BIP: ?
>> >
>> >   Title: Block size doubles at each reward halving with max block size
>> of
>> > 32M
>> >
>> >   Author: John Sacco <johnsock@gmail•com>
>> >
>> >   Status: Draft
>> >
>> >   Type: Standards Track
>> >
>> >   Created: 2015-11-11
>> >
>> > Abstract
>> >
>> > Change max block size to 2MB at next block subsidy halving, and double
>> the
>> > block size at each subsidy halving until reaching 32MB.
>> >
>> > Copyright
>> >
>> > This proposal belongs in the public domain. Anyone can use this text
>> for any
>> > purpose with proper attribution to the author.
>> >
>> > Motivation
>> >
>> > 1.    Gradually restores block size to the default 32 MB setting
>> originally
>> > implemented by Satoshi.
>> >
>> > 2.    Initial increase to 2MB at block halving in July 2016 would have
>> > minimal impact to existing nodes running on most hardware and networks.
>> >
>> > 3.    Long term solution that does not make enthusiastic assumptions
>> > regarding future bandwidth and storage availability estimates.
>> >
>> > 4.    Maximum block size of 32MB allows peak usage of ~100 tx/sec by
>> year
>> > 2031.
>> >
>> > 5.    Exercise network upgrade procedure during subsidy reward halving,
>> a
>> > milestone event with the goal of increasing awareness among miners and
>> node
>> > operators.
>> >
>> > Specification
>> >
>> > 1.    Increase the maximum block size to 2MB when block 630,000 is
>> reached
>> > and 75% of the last 1,000 blocks have signaled support.
>> >
>> > 2.    Increase maximum block size to 4MB at block 840,000.
>> >
>> > 3.    Increase maximum block size to 8MB at block 1,050,000.
>> >
>> > 4.    Increase maximum block size to 16MB at block 1,260,000.
>> >
>> > 5.    Increase maximum block size to 32MB at block 1,470,000.
>> >
>> > Backward compatibility
>> >
>> > All older clients are not compatible with this change. The first block
>> > larger than 1M will create a network partition excluding not-upgraded
>> > network nodes and miners.
>> >
>> > Rationale
>> >
>> > While more comprehensive solutions are developed, an increase to the
>> block
>> > size is needed to continue network growth. A longer term solution is
>> needed
>> > to prevent complications associated with additional hard forks. It
>> should
>> > also increase at a gradual rate that retains and allows a large
>> distribution
>> > of full nodes.  Scheduling this hard fork to occur no earlier than the
>> > subsidy halving in 2016 has the goal of simplifying the communication
>> > outreach needed to achieve consensus, while also providing a buffer of
>> time
>> > to make necessary preparations.
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> >
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7510 bytes --]