Revised spec below to put us back at 2 MB at next halving in 2016 (addressing Luke & Drak's points). This is more in line with intent of the original proposal and provides sufficient time to gain consensus.
Specification > > > * 2 MB, height 420,000 < 630,000; (fork active when 75% of last 1,000 blocks signal support and block 420,000 reached, ~July 2016) * 4 MB, height 630,000 < 840,000; (year ~2020) * 8 MB, height 840,000 < 1,050,000; (year ~2024) * 16 MB, height 1,050,000 < 1,260,000; (year ~2028) * 32 MB, height >= 1,260,000. (year ~2032) On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Btc Drak <btcd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > * 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 <1240...@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 <johns...@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 >> >> >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
