📅 Original date posted:2017-03-29
📝 Original message:In order for any blocksize increase to be agreed upon, more consensus is
needed. The proportion of users believing no blocksize increases are
needed is larger than the hardfork target core wants(95% consensus). The
proportion of users believing in microtransactions for all is also larger
than 5%, and both of those groups may be larger than 10% respectively. I
don't think either the Big-blocks faction nor the low-node-costs faction
have even a simple majority of support. Getting consensus is going to be a
big mess, but it is critical that it is done.
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Martin Lízner via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> If there should be a hard-fork, Core team should author the code. Other
> dev teams have marginal support among all BTC users.
>
> Im tending to believe, that HF is necessary evil now. But lets do it in
> conservative approach:
> - Fix historical BTC issues, improve code
> - Plan HF activation date well ahead - 12 months+
> - Allow increasing block size on year-year basis as Luke suggested
> - Compromise with miners on initial block size bump (e.g. 2MB)
> - SegWit
>
> Martin Lizner
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 6:59 PM, 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170329/89ff2027/attachment.html>;
Jared Lee Richardson [ARCHIVE] /
npub149…5vasy
2023-06-07 17:58:07
in reply to nevent1q…m9yc
Author Public Key
npub149tvqh6gesh22h60jrehl5clrxscx6q65wznq9ty6pae8sxq00esg5vasyPublished at
2023-06-07 17:58:07Event JSON
{
"id": "6d10a1b62029156e41b1ad3145626b7054b09411309af85ed1782c2d888cfbfb",
"pubkey": "a956c05f48cc2ea55f4f90f37fd31f19a183681aa385301564d07b93c0c07bf3",
"created_at": 1686160687,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f66fb8ea0b053d3b896ce377aea38775ffc7975376c3ee96291861cf920b456b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"24346ca70a070df130b1386216f9b8ac63d620b274a18174bda891a69508ed40",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a956c05f48cc2ea55f4f90f37fd31f19a183681aa385301564d07b93c0c07bf3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-03-29\n📝 Original message:In order for any blocksize increase to be agreed upon, more consensus is\nneeded. The proportion of users believing no blocksize increases are\nneeded is larger than the hardfork target core wants(95% consensus). The\nproportion of users believing in microtransactions for all is also larger\nthan 5%, and both of those groups may be larger than 10% respectively. I\ndon't think either the Big-blocks faction nor the low-node-costs faction\nhave even a simple majority of support. Getting consensus is going to be a\nbig mess, but it is critical that it is done.\n\nOn Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Martin Lízner via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e If there should be a hard-fork, Core team should author the code. Other\n\u003e dev teams have marginal support among all BTC users.\n\u003e\n\u003e Im tending to believe, that HF is necessary evil now. But lets do it in\n\u003e conservative approach:\n\u003e - Fix historical BTC issues, improve code\n\u003e - Plan HF activation date well ahead - 12 months+\n\u003e - Allow increasing block size on year-year basis as Luke suggested\n\u003e - Compromise with miners on initial block size bump (e.g. 2MB)\n\u003e - SegWit\n\u003e\n\u003e Martin Lizner\n\u003e\n\u003e On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I've proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Consensus\n\u003e\u003e but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than\n\u003e\u003e one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I would\n\u003e\u003e post this here again for comment.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should\n\u003e\u003e be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its\n\u003e\u003e limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to\n\u003e\u003e remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in\n\u003e\u003e the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block\n\u003e\u003e halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is\n\u003e\u003e the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be\n\u003e\u003e in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e With this patch in core's next release, Bitcoin works just as before,\n\u003e\u003e no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there\n\u003e\u003e will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and\n\u003e\u003e exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three\n\u003e\u003e years.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e We don't yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size\n\u003e\u003e limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like\n\u003e\u003e BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so\n\u003e\u003e on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core's\n\u003e\u003e release, they all become soft fork. We'll have enough time to discuss\n\u003e\u003e all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we\n\u003e\u003e choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it\n\u003e\u003e from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late.\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\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\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170329/89ff2027/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "7ef711107359931bdc3d088f7265fb354adeec02c9e4aea3eb2f509e9efb04e84d58d5e55222fe7d1f5ce8270acac11c19ecaec1bc9855818a770a5bb4e6da28"
}