From: "Clément Elbaz" <clem.ds@gmail•com>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock•name>,
bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function
Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 10:30:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAP63atbdFSw0rDeuwgtjsDYsXnKSHNN9=zedzip2MsZ0hSY59w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3381 bytes --]
Matt : I think proposal #1 and #3 are a lot better than #2, and #1 is my
favorite.
I see two problems with proposal #2.
The first problem with proposal #2 is that, as we see in democracies,
there is often a mismatch between the people conscious vote and these same
people behavior.
Relying on an intentional vote made consciously by miners by choosing a
configuration value can lead to twisted results if their actual behavior
doesn't correlate with their vote (eg, they all vote for a small block size
because it is the default configuration of their software, and then they
fill it completely all the time and everything crashes).
The second problem with proposal #2 is that if Gavin and Mike are right,
there is simply no time to gather a meaningful amount of votes over the
coinbases, after the fork but before the Bitcoin scalability crash.
I like proposal #1 because the "vote" is made using already available data.
Also there is no possible mismatch between behavior and vote. As a miner
you vote by choosing to create a big (or small) block, and your actions
reflect your vote. It is simple and straightforward.
My feelings on proposal #3 is it is a little bit mixing apples and oranges,
but I may not seeing all the implications.
Le ven. 8 mai 2015 à 09:21, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock•name> a écrit :
> Between all the flames on this list, several ideas were raised that did
> not get much attention. I hereby resubmit these ideas for consideration and
> discussion.
>
> - Perhaps the hard block size limit should be a function of the actual
> block sizes over some trailing sampling period. For example, take the
> median block size among the most recent 2016 blocks and multiply it by 1.5.
> This allows Bitcoin to scale up gradually and organically, rather than
> having human beings guessing at what is an appropriate limit.
>
> - Perhaps the hard block size limit should be determined by a vote of the
> miners. Each miner could embed a desired block size limit in the coinbase
> transactions of the blocks it publishes. The effective hard block size
> limit would be that size having the greatest number of votes within a
> sliding window of most recent blocks.
>
> - Perhaps the hard block size limit should be a function of block-chain
> length, so that it can scale up smoothly rather than jumping immediately to
> 20 MB. This function could be linear (anticipating a breakdown of Moore's
> Law) or quadratic.
>
> I would be in support of any of the above, but I do not support Mike
> Hearn's proposed jump to 20 MB. Hearn's proposal kicks the can down the
> road without actually solving the problem, and it does so in a
> controversial (step function) way.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4018 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-08 10:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 69+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-08 7:20 Matt Whitlock
2015-05-08 10:15 ` Mike Hearn
2015-05-08 10:30 ` Clément Elbaz [this message]
2015-05-08 12:32 ` Joel Joonatan Kaartinen
2015-05-08 12:48 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-05-08 13:24 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-05-08 12:48 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-05-08 16:51 ` Peter Todd
2015-05-08 22:36 ` Joel Joonatan Kaartinen
2015-05-09 18:30 ` Peter Todd
2015-05-08 15:57 ` Alex Mizrahi
2015-05-08 16:55 ` Bryan Bishop
2015-05-08 20:33 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-05-08 22:43 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-05-08 22:45 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-05-08 23:15 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-05-08 23:58 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-05-09 3:36 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-05-09 11:58 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-05-09 13:49 ` Tier Nolan
2015-05-10 17:36 ` Owen Gunden
2015-05-10 18:10 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-05-10 21:21 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-05-10 21:33 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-05-10 21:56 ` Rob Golding
2015-05-13 10:43 ` Tier Nolan
2015-05-16 0:22 ` Rusty Russell
2015-05-16 11:09 ` Tier Nolan
2015-05-18 1:42 ` Rusty Russell
2015-05-19 8:59 ` Tier Nolan
2015-05-10 21:48 ` Thomas Voegtlin
2015-05-10 22:31 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-05-10 23:11 ` Thomas Voegtlin
2015-05-28 15:53 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-05-28 17:05 ` Mike Hearn
2015-05-28 17:19 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-05-28 17:34 ` Mike Hearn
2015-05-28 18:23 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-05-29 11:26 ` Mike Hearn
2015-05-29 11:42 ` Tier Nolan
2015-05-29 11:57 ` Mike Hearn
2015-05-29 12:39 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-05-29 14:00 ` insecurity
2015-05-29 14:15 ` Braun Brelin
2015-05-29 14:09 ` Tier Nolan
2015-05-29 14:20 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-05-29 14:22 ` Mike Hearn
2015-05-29 14:21 ` Mike Hearn
2015-05-29 14:22 ` Tier Nolan
2015-05-29 16:39 ` [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB stepfunction Raystonn .
2015-05-29 18:28 ` Tier Nolan
2015-05-29 17:53 ` [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function Admin Istrator
2015-05-30 9:03 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-01 11:30 ` Ricardo Filipe
2015-06-01 11:46 ` Marcel Jamin
2015-05-29 18:47 ` Bryan Cheng
2015-05-30 1:36 ` Cameron Garnham
2015-05-28 17:39 ` [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB stepfunction Raystonn .
2015-05-28 17:59 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-05-28 18:21 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-05-28 17:50 ` [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function Peter Todd
2015-05-28 17:14 ` Thomas Voegtlin
2015-05-28 17:34 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-05-29 17:45 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-05-08 14:57 Steven Pine
2015-05-09 0:13 Raystonn
[not found] <CAAjy6kDdB8uODpPcmS8h4eap8fke7Y2y773NHJZja8tB5mPk4Q@mail.gmail.com>
2015-05-28 16:30 ` Steven Pine
[not found] ` <CABsx9T03aNRC5DRbR06nNtsiBdJAcQsGAHvbCOe3pnuRpdvq5w@mail.gmail.com>
2015-05-28 18:25 ` Steven Pine
2015-05-28 18:31 ` Gavin Andresen
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='CAP63atbdFSw0rDeuwgtjsDYsXnKSHNN9=zedzip2MsZ0hSY59w@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=clem.ds@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bip@mattwhitlock$(echo .)name \
--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