Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP

From: Andrew C <achow101@gmail•com>
To: Thomas Kerin <bitcoin.ml@thomaslerin•io>,
	bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 16:00:18 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a86a5d01-088f-5242-12ab-eea374858899@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C5621135-FBC8-44E7-9EC0-AFDEEBB6031E@thomaslerin.io>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5724 bytes --]

I looked at the discussions about the block size and about Luke-Jr's
proposal on Reddit and Bitcointalk. From what I observed of all of the
discussions is that few users are in favor of the status quo, and even
fewer are in favor of decreasing the block size. The majority of users
favored Segwit because it was a block size increase (that was a commonly
used reason in support of it and in arguments about increasing the block
size).

Discussions about Luke-Jr's proposal indicated that many users disagreed
with the decrease in block size and the time that it took to increase
again to 1 MB. There was not only disagreement but explicit ridicule and
mocking of that aspect of the proposal.

On 2/6/2017 3:28 PM, Thomas Kerin wrote:
> "Many users are of the opposite opinion, that the block size is too
> small." - That is newspeak, the users can speak for themselves.
>
> From whom did you gather feedback from before you changed Luke-Jrs BIP?
>
> If people don't agree with the proposal, changing it an infinite
> number of times light well lead to the same result.
>
> Have the users spoken, in their response to what Luke-Jr proposed?
>
> On 6 February 2017 00:53:03 CET, Andrew C via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>     On 2/5/2017 6:02 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote:
>
>         My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community
>         opposes any block size increase hardfork ever. 
>
>     From what I have observed, it seems to be that people are more so
>     opposed to a hard fork when there is a comparable soft fork available
>     than simply opposed to any block size increase hard fork ever. From the
>     various threads discussing your proposal, it seemed that many would
>     favor it if it increased over 1 MB sooner or if it never even decreased
>     in the first place.
>
>         Your version doesn't address the current block size issues
>         (ie, the blocks being too large). 
>
>     Many users are of the opposite opinion, that the block size is too
>     small. I understand that the decrease is to allow the blockchain size to
>     grow more slowly thereby allowing users to be more likely to run full
>     nodes. Unfortunately, I think that we are way past the point of no
>     return on that. The blockchain is already 100+ GB. Decreasing the block
>     size is not going to make that any smaller and is not going to make it
>     any less painful to run a full node. Given that in order to start up a
>     new full node will still require downloading at least 100 GB of data, I
>     don't think that decreasing the block size will better facilitate full
>     node creation. Furthermore, the current trend with ISPs (at least in the
>     US) is implementing data and bandwidth caps so users are still unlikely
>     to start up new full nodes regardless of any changes that we can
>     currently do.
>
>         So you've retained the only certain- DOA parts of my proposal,
>         and removed the most useful part... I'm not sure the point.
>         Also, your version is now EXCLUSIVELY a hardfork, so it makes
>         no sense to keep the BIP 9 deployment at all - either it gets
>         consensus or it doesn't, but miners have no part in deployment
>         of it. 
>
>     Yes, I know deployment needs to be fixed. I was more proposing this for
>     comment on the modified block size schedule. I just kept the deployment
>     as it was originally. However, we could use a modified version of BIP 9
>     by using one of the top three bits and a longer locked-in period as a
>     grace period for all users to upgrade.
>
>         On Sunday, February 05, 2017 9:50:26 PM Andrew C via
>         bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
>             Hello all, Many people have expressed discontent with
>             Luke-jr's proposed block size BIP, in particular with the
>             decrease in size that would occur if it were to be
>             activated prior to 2024. I have decided to modify the
>             proposal to instead begin the increase steps at the
>             current 1000000 byte limit. The increases and the time
>             spam of each increase will remain the same, just that the
>             increase begins from 1000000 bytes instead of 300000
>             bytes. Furthermore, instead of a fixed schedule from a
>             fixed point in time, the increases will instead be
>             calculated off of the MTP of the activation block (the
>             first block to be in the active state for this fork).
>             While this proposal shares many of the same issues with
>             the one it modifies, I hope that it will be slightly less
>             controversial and can allow us to move forward with
>             scaling Bitcoin. The full text of the proposal can be
>             found at
>             https://github.com/achow101/bips/blob/bip-blksize/bip-blksize.mediawiki.
>             My implementation of it is available at
>             https://github.com/achow101/bitcoin/tree/bip-blksize Andrew
>             ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>             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
>
> -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6967 bytes --]