BIP 100 repo

BIP 100 repo
2015-09-02 23:58 ` Jeff Garzik
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2015-09-02 23:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin development mailing list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 194 bytes --]

Opened a repo containing the full text of BIP 100 discussion document, in
markdown format.

The BIP 100 formal spec will be checked in here as well, before submitting
to upstream bips.git repo.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 270 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-09-02 23:51 [bitcoin-dev] BIP 100 repo Jeff Garzik

  2015-09-03  0:17   ` Luke Dashjr
  2015-09-03  6:41   ` odinn
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2015-09-02 23:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin development mailing list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 351 bytes --]

Oops, link paste fail.

The repo: https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100


On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail•com> wrote:

> Opened a repo containing the full text of BIP 100 discussion document, in
> markdown format.
>
> The BIP 100 formal spec will be checked in here as well, before submitting
> to upstream bips.git repo.
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 791 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-09-02 23:58 ` Jeff Garzik

  2015-09-03  3:38     ` Jeff Garzik
  2015-09-03  4:09     ` Jeff Garzik
  2015-09-03  6:41   ` odinn
  
From: Luke Dashjr @ 2015-09-03  0:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev, Jeff Garzik

On Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:58:54 PM Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev 
wrote:
> The repo: https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100

What is the purpose of the newly added 1 MB floor? It seems clear from the 
current information available that 1 MB is presently too high for the limit, 
and it is entirely one-sided to only allow increases when decreases are much 
more likely to be needed in the short term.

Must the new size limit votes use 11 bytes of coinbase? Why not just use a 
numeric value pushed after height? Since this is a hardfork, I suggest 
increasing the coinbase length to allow for 100 bytes *in addition* to the 
pushed height and size-vote.

I suggest combining 2 & 4 into a single rule lifting the 1 MB limit to 32 MB 
(or whatever value is deemed appropriate) to make it clear that the limit 
remains a part of the consensus protocol and p2p protocol limits are not to 
have an effect on consensus rules.

Furthermore, I suggest modifying the voting to require 50% to set the limit 
floor. This has the effect of merely coordinating what miners can already 
effectively do today by rejecting blocks larger than some collusion-
determined limit.

Thoughts?

Luke


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-09-03  0:17   ` Luke Dashjr

  2015-09-03  4:09     ` Jeff Garzik
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2015-09-03  3:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke Dashjr;  Bitcoin development mailing list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1628 bytes --]

Luke,

- Definitely agree with most of your suggestions on the practical side;
several clarification could be made.
- The power to decrease the hard limit appears riskier long term in my
analysis.  This is mitigated somewhat by the ease at which miners may
locally or collectively lower the block size at any time, without a vote.


On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:58:54 PM Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > The repo: https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100
>
> What is the purpose of the newly added 1 MB floor? It seems clear from the
> current information available that 1 MB is presently too high for the
> limit,
> and it is entirely one-sided to only allow increases when decreases are
> much
> more likely to be needed in the short term.
>
> Must the new size limit votes use 11 bytes of coinbase? Why not just use a
> numeric value pushed after height? Since this is a hardfork, I suggest
> increasing the coinbase length to allow for 100 bytes *in addition* to the
> pushed height and size-vote.
>
> I suggest combining 2 & 4 into a single rule lifting the 1 MB limit to 32
> MB
> (or whatever value is deemed appropriate) to make it clear that the limit
> remains a part of the consensus protocol and p2p protocol limits are not to
> have an effect on consensus rules.
>
> Furthermore, I suggest modifying the voting to require 50% to set the limit
> floor. This has the effect of merely coordinating what miners can already
> effectively do today by rejecting blocks larger than some collusion-
> determined limit.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Luke
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2191 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-09-03  0:17   ` Luke Dashjr
  2015-09-03  3:38     ` Jeff Garzik

  2015-09-03  4:55       ` Benjamin
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2015-09-03  4:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke Dashjr;  Bitcoin development mailing list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1481 bytes --]

Oh, and answering your question about the 1M:  It is a safety rail.  It can
perform no worse on the low end than the current system.  Eliminates
unlikely scenarios that squeeze users.


On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:58:54 PM Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > The repo: https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100
>
> What is the purpose of the newly added 1 MB floor? It seems clear from the
> current information available that 1 MB is presently too high for the
> limit,
> and it is entirely one-sided to only allow increases when decreases are
> much
> more likely to be needed in the short term.
>
> Must the new size limit votes use 11 bytes of coinbase? Why not just use a
> numeric value pushed after height? Since this is a hardfork, I suggest
> increasing the coinbase length to allow for 100 bytes *in addition* to the
> pushed height and size-vote.
>
> I suggest combining 2 & 4 into a single rule lifting the 1 MB limit to 32
> MB
> (or whatever value is deemed appropriate) to make it clear that the limit
> remains a part of the consensus protocol and p2p protocol limits are not to
> have an effect on consensus rules.
>
> Furthermore, I suggest modifying the voting to require 50% to set the limit
> floor. This has the effect of merely coordinating what miners can already
> effectively do today by rejecting blocks larger than some collusion-
> determined limit.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Luke
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2012 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-09-03  4:09     ` Jeff Garzik

  
From: Benjamin @ 2015-09-03  4:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeff Garzik;  Bitcoin development mailing list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3272 bytes --]

I would be helpful to describe what is meant by "votes". As far as I
understand this would be a semi-automatic process - nodes encode values
which in turn are hardcoded in software, or is this completely automated
without any intervention at all? Is there the possibility that nodes decide
by encode votes, but somehow this decision is not adhered to? Is 4. a 51%
rule?

Under 2. it might make sense to specify values in the range (1MB steps
e.g.). The number of options could have an effect. For example if the vote
has 4 possible values or 32 possible values can make a difference in
outcomes.

With regards to 1. Bitcoin does not have a fee market, although I agree
that might be a good goal. There is no price-determination of fees and no
definition of quality of service. A fee market would entail some matching
of demand and supply to establish a price. Users would adjust fee to win a
transaction slow in a deterministic way. However currently the user has no
way of knowing what effect a fee might have. So this would necessarily
include some kind pricing-mechanism with actual commitments. Bitcoin as a
system is quite far away from such a capability. It would mean Bitcoin is
capable of adapting to how it is used. For example that would allow to
shift transactions from high demand period to low demand period. I'm not
aware of any proposal to make an actual functioning fee market in Bitcoin
(or even the conceptual primitives).



On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:09 AM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Oh, and answering your question about the 1M:  It is a safety rail.  It
> can perform no worse on the low end than the current system.  Eliminates
> unlikely scenarios that squeeze users.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:58:54 PM Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
>> wrote:
>> > The repo: https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100
>>
>> What is the purpose of the newly added 1 MB floor? It seems clear from the
>> current information available that 1 MB is presently too high for the
>> limit,
>> and it is entirely one-sided to only allow increases when decreases are
>> much
>> more likely to be needed in the short term.
>>
>> Must the new size limit votes use 11 bytes of coinbase? Why not just use a
>> numeric value pushed after height? Since this is a hardfork, I suggest
>> increasing the coinbase length to allow for 100 bytes *in addition* to the
>> pushed height and size-vote.
>>
>> I suggest combining 2 & 4 into a single rule lifting the 1 MB limit to 32
>> MB
>> (or whatever value is deemed appropriate) to make it clear that the limit
>> remains a part of the consensus protocol and p2p protocol limits are not
>> to
>> have an effect on consensus rules.
>>
>> Furthermore, I suggest modifying the voting to require 50% to set the
>> limit
>> floor. This has the effect of merely coordinating what miners can already
>> effectively do today by rejecting blocks larger than some collusion-
>> determined limit.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Luke
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4368 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-09-02 23:58 ` Jeff Garzik
  2015-09-03  0:17   ` Luke Dashjr

  
From: odinn @ 2015-09-03  6:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeff Garzik, Bitcoin development mailing list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Excellent - thank you.

Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev:
> Oops, link paste fail.
> 
> The repo: https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail•com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Opened a repo containing the full text of BIP 100 discussion
>> document, in markdown format.
>> 
>> The BIP 100 formal spec will be checked in here as well, before
>> submitting to upstream bips.git repo.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
> list bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org 
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> 

- -- 
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEbBAEBCgAGBQJV5+uQAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CVBUH9A5GtIj3pLxZRlX0oDxSbIWJ
2830HURoeb40ShBlhbzO1nHiJtPhRPWqByZETQcuElBagMPreSKI5VZxJ1xaNOI3
o6yo9ujeLNlge1j53TOq8uQCXKnwrVsjS3yQkXlo+IX+Vihin5c/D4Xn9y97OqwQ
CixVswCJrrRrGHj6YaFsfAx+epaJ/aT4djoB0XjH9PKJI5b0cPGSBDipHbuVn3nd
FZidPAS/hHI0Sw3k0EHtYudjBXBbMi2hCad37asrg2cIF/sFbCA/BSkpuIi5agzY
50Wp8xm3gd4WWjEn/svhw2AIgH7R/1Yk2/qFImob5iXMm7sU1OUMHD325kN2dg==
=7a0Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]