📅 Original date posted:2017-03-28
📝 Original message:What meeting are you referring to? Who were the participants?
Removing the limit but relying on the p2p protocol is not really a true
32MiB limit, but a limit of whatever transport methods provide. This can
lead to differing consensus if alternative layers for relaying are used.
What you seem to be asking for is an unbound block size (or at least
determined by whatever miners produce). This has the possibility (and even
likelihood) of removing many participants from the network, including many
small miners.
32MB in less than 3 years also appears to be far beyond limits of safety
which are known to exist far sooner, and we cannot expect hardware and
networking layers to improve by those amounts in that time.
It also seems like it would be much better to wait until SegWit activates
in order to truly measure the effects on the network from this increased
capacity before committing to any additional increases.
-Alphonse
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I've proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Consensus
> but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than
> one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I would
> post this here again for comment.
>
> The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should
> be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.
>
> Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its
> limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to
> remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in
> the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block
> halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is
> the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be
> in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.
>
> With this patch in core's next release, Bitcoin works just as before,
> no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there
> will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and
> exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three
> years.
>
> We don't yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size
> limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like
> BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so
> on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core's
> release, they all become soft fork. We'll have enough time to discuss
> all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we
> choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it
> from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork.
>
> Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170328/ce012e4a/attachment.html>;
Alphonse Pace [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xd…lkyw0
2023-06-07 17:58:01
in reply to nevent1q…hq0y
Author Public Key
npub1xddusuj8cyeqaqalq0zklafvdgr26pt32t0tvquw5mmwwwm3dehsqlkyw0Published at
2023-06-07 17:58:01Event JSON
{
"id": "c34ee93d86326ec1feb02ae1f4dfe60ccedfc50c72ed7e1b63f94cccd9d0240e",
"pubkey": "335bc87247c1320e83bf03c56ff52c6a06ad057152deb6038ea6f6e73b716e6f",
"created_at": 1686160681,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f66fb8ea0b053d3b896ce377aea38775ffc7975376c3ee96291861cf920b456b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a665057198d733bf66de44f87d87301c395b682bf67f3f2b09b63ad882574129",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a956c05f48cc2ea55f4f90f37fd31f19a183681aa385301564d07b93c0c07bf3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-03-28\n📝 Original message:What meeting are you referring to? Who were the participants?\n\nRemoving the limit but relying on the p2p protocol is not really a true\n32MiB limit, but a limit of whatever transport methods provide. This can\nlead to differing consensus if alternative layers for relaying are used.\nWhat you seem to be asking for is an unbound block size (or at least\ndetermined by whatever miners produce). This has the possibility (and even\nlikelihood) of removing many participants from the network, including many\nsmall miners.\n\n32MB in less than 3 years also appears to be far beyond limits of safety\nwhich are known to exist far sooner, and we cannot expect hardware and\nnetworking layers to improve by those amounts in that time.\n\nIt also seems like it would be much better to wait until SegWit activates\nin order to truly measure the effects on the network from this increased\ncapacity before committing to any additional increases.\n\n-Alphonse\n\n\n\nOn Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I've proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Consensus\n\u003e but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than\n\u003e one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I would\n\u003e post this here again for comment.\n\u003e\n\u003e The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should\n\u003e be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.\n\u003e\n\u003e Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its\n\u003e limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to\n\u003e remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in\n\u003e the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block\n\u003e halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is\n\u003e the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be\n\u003e in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.\n\u003e\n\u003e With this patch in core's next release, Bitcoin works just as before,\n\u003e no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there\n\u003e will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and\n\u003e exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three\n\u003e years.\n\u003e\n\u003e We don't yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size\n\u003e limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like\n\u003e BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so\n\u003e on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core's\n\u003e release, they all become soft fork. We'll have enough time to discuss\n\u003e all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we\n\u003e choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it\n\u003e from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork.\n\u003e\n\u003e Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late.\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170328/ce012e4a/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "dab90df3c7acfe3997b7a39cad44a77ad4405e72eddc77daa8c3c07e35bb354f4a0af3f566d5e06121b07f0b240272f040b4519b63835e71b84fe51373d4025a"
}