By "upgrade" the HF you mean activate 2X and then spoonet 18 months later or do not activate the 2x HF at all?
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > From me to you ...this proposal doesn't lock in anything. We could just > merge it with some small pushback - allow segwit to activate in Aug, then > "upgrade" the hard fork to be "spoonet in 18 months" instead. > > On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Segwit replaces the 1 mb size limit with a weight limit of 4 mb. After >> segwit there's no need for MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE anymore, let alone >> MAX_BLOCK2_BASE_SIZE. >> Thus, by "hf to 2 mb" it seems you just really mean hardforking from 4 >> mb weight to 8 mb weight. >> >> I would also use the hardfork bit (sign bit in block.nNersion) as matt >> comments. >> >> > We're in a deadlock and it seems we can't go forward adding more >> functionality to segwit without the community approval (which include >> miners). This is obvious to me.Then we have to go back. >> >> If segwit is controversial the way it is (I still don't understand why >> despite having insistently asking to users and miners who claim to >> oppose it), adding more consensus rule changes won't make it any less >> controversial. If anything, it would be removing consensus rule >> changes, not adding them that could make it less controversial. >> >> By no means I want to dissuade you from working on this bip proposal, >> but I really don't see how it helps getting out of the deadlock at >> all. >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev >> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > Some people have asked me for the current implementation of this patch >> to >> > review. I remind you that the current patch does not implement the >> hard-fork >> > signaling, as requested by Matt. >> > >> > The Segwit2Mb patch can be found here: >> > https://github.com/SergioDemianLerner/bitcoin/commits/master >> > >> > For now, the segwit2mb repo has a single test file using the old >> internal >> > blockchain building method (test/block_size_tests.cpp). This must be >> > replaced soon with a better external test using the bitcoin/qa/rpc-tests >> > tests, which I will begin to work on now after I collect all comments >> from >> > the community. >> > >> > >> > regards >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Jared Lee Richardson < >> jared...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> > Remember that the "hashpower required to secure bitcoin" is >> determined >> >> > as a percentage of total Bitcoins transacted on-chain in each block >> >> >> >> Can you explain this statement a little better? What do you mean by >> >> that? What does the total bitcoins transacted have to do with >> >> hashpower required? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev >> >> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> > Hey Sergio, >> >> > >> >> > You appear to have ignored the last two years of Bitcoin hardfork >> >> > research and understanding, recycling instead BIP 102 from 2015. >> There >> >> > are many proposals which have pushed the state of hard fork research >> >> > much further since then, and you may wish to read some of the posts >> on >> >> > this mailing list listed at https://bitcoinhardforkresearc >> h.github.io/ >> >> > and make further edits based on what you learn. Your goal of "avoid >> >> > technical changes" appears to not have any basis outside of perceived >> >> > compromise for compromise sake, only making such a hardfork riskier >> >> > instead. >> >> > >> >> > At a minimum, in terms of pure technical changes, you should probably >> >> > consider (probably among others): >> >> > >> >> > a) Utilizing the "hard fork signaling bit" in the nVersion of the >> block. >> >> > b) Either limiting non-SegWit transactions in some way to fix the >> n**2 >> >> > sighash and FindAndDelete runtime and memory usage issues or fix >> them by >> >> > utilizing the new sighash type which many wallets and projects have >> >> > already implemented for SegWit in the spending of non-SegWit outputs. >> >> > c) Your really should have replay protection in any HF. The clever >> fix >> >> > from >> >> > Spoonnet for poor scaling of optionally allowing non-SegWit outputs >> to >> >> > be spent with SegWit's sighash provides this all in one go. >> >> > d) You may wish to consider the possibility of tweaking the witness >> >> > discount and possibly discounting other parts of the input - SegWit >> went >> >> > a long ways towards making removal of elements from the UTXO set >> cheaper >> >> > than adding them, but didn't quite get there, you should probably >> finish >> >> > that job. This also provides additional tuneable parameters to allow >> you >> >> > to increase the block size while not having a blowup in the >> worst-case >> >> > block size. >> >> > e) Additional commitments at the top of the merkle root - both for >> >> > SegWit transactions and as additional space for merged mining and >> other >> >> > commitments which we may wish to add in the future, this should >> likely >> >> > be implemented an "additional header" ala Johnson Lau's Spoonnet >> >> > proposal. >> >> > >> >> > Additionally, I think your parameters here pose very significant >> risk to >> >> > the Bitcoin ecosystem broadly. >> >> > >> >> > a) Activating a hard fork with less than 18/24 months (and even >> then...) >> >> > from a fully-audited and supported release of full node software to >> >> > activation date poses significant risks to many large software >> projects >> >> > and users. I've repeatedly received feedback from various folks that >> a >> >> > year or more is likely required in any hard fork to limit this risk, >> and >> >> > limited pushback on that given the large increase which SegWit >> provides >> >> > itself buying a ton of time. >> >> > >> >> > b) Having a significant discontinuity in block size increase only >> serves >> >> > to confuse and mislead users and businesses, forcing them to rapidly >> >> > adapt to a Bitcoin which changed overnight both by hardforking, and >> by >> >> > fees changing suddenly. Instead, having the hard fork activate >> technical >> >> > changes, and then slowly increasing the block size over the following >> >> > several years keeps things nice and continuous and also keeps us from >> >> > having to revisit ye old blocksize debate again six months after >> >> > activation. >> >> > >> >> > c) You should likely consider the effect of the many technological >> >> > innovations coming down the pipe in the coming months. Technologies >> like >> >> > Lightning, TumbleBit, and even your own RootStock could significantly >> >> > reduce fee pressure as transactions move to much faster and more >> >> > featureful systems. >> >> > >> >> > Commitments to aggressive hard fork parameters now may leave miners >> >> > without much revenue as far out as the next halving (which current >> >> > transaction growth trends are indicating we'd just only barely reach >> 2MB >> >> > of transaction volume, let alone if you consider the effects of users >> >> > moving to systems which provide more features for Bitcoin >> transactions). >> >> > This could lead to a precipitous drop in hashrate as miners are no >> >> > longer sufficiently compensated. >> >> > >> >> > Remember that the "hashpower required to secure bitcoin" is >> determined >> >> > as a percentage of total Bitcoins transacted on-chain in each block, >> so >> >> > as subsidy goes down, miners need to be paid with fees, not just >> price >> >> > increases. Even if we were OK with hashpower going down compared to >> the >> >> > value it is securing, betting the security of Bitcoin on its price >> >> > rising exponentially to match decreasing subsidy does not strike me >> as a >> >> > particularly inspiring tradeoff. >> >> > >> >> > There aren't many great technical solutions to some of these issues, >> as >> >> > far as I'm aware, but it's something that needs to be incredibly >> >> > carefully considered before betting the continued security of >> Bitcoin on >> >> > exponential on-chain growth, something which we have historically >> never >> >> > seen. >> >> > >> >> > Matt >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On March 31, 2017 5:09:18 PM EDT, Sergio Demian Lerner via >> bitcoin-dev >> >> > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> >>Hi everyone, >> >> >> >> >> >>Segwit2Mb is the project to merge into Bitcoin a minimal patch that >> >> >>aims to >> >> >>untangle the current conflict between different political positions >> >> >>regarding segwit activation vs. an increase of the on-chain >> blockchain >> >> >>space through a standard block size increase. It is not a new >> solution, >> >> >>but >> >> >>it should be seen more as a least common denominator. >> >> >> >> >> >>Segwit2Mb combines segwit as it is today in Bitcoin 0.14+ with a 2MB >> >> >>block >> >> >>size hard-fork activated ONLY if segwit activates (95% of miners >> >> >>signaling), but at a fixed future date. >> >> >> >> >> >>The sole objective of this proposal is to re-unite the Bitcoin >> >> >>community >> >> >>and avoid a cryptocurrency split. Segwit2Mb does not aim to be best >> >> >>possible technical solution to solve Bitcoin technical limitations. >> >> >>However, this proposal does not imply a compromise to the future >> >> >>scalability or decentralization of Bitcoin, as a small increase in >> >> >>block >> >> >>size has been proven by several core and non-core developers not to >> >> >>affect >> >> >>Bitcoin value propositions. >> >> >> >> >> >>In the worst case, a 2X block size increase has much lower economic >> >> >>impact >> >> >>than the last bitcoin halving (<10%), which succeeded without >> problem. >> >> >> >> >> >>On the other side, Segwit2Mb primary goal is to be minimalistic: in >> >> >>this >> >> >>patch some choices have been made to reduce the number of lines >> >> >>modified in >> >> >>the current Bitcoin Core state (master branch), instead of >> implementing >> >> >>the >> >> >>most elegant solution. This is because I want to reduce the time it >> >> >>takes >> >> >>for core programmers and reviewers to check the correctness of the >> >> >>code, >> >> >>and to report and correct bugs. >> >> >> >> >> >>The patch was built by forking the master branch of Bitcoin Core, >> >> >>mixing a >> >> >>few lines of code from Jeff Garzik's BIP102, and defining a second >> >> >>versionbits activation bit (bit 2) for the combined activation. >> >> >> >> >> >>The combined activation of segwit and 2Mb hard-fork nVersion bit is 2 >> >> >>(DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT_AND_2MB_BLOCKS). >> >> >> >> >> >>This means that segwit can still be activated without the 2MB >> hard-fork >> >> >>by >> >> >>signaling bit 1 in nVersion (DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT). >> >> >> >> >> >>The tentative lock-in and hard-fork dates are the following: >> >> >> >> >> >>Bit 2 signaling StartTime = 1493424000; // April 29th, 2017 >> >> >> >> >> >>Bit 2 signaling Timeout = 1503964800; // August 29th, 2017 >> >> >> >> >> >>HardForkTime = 1513209600; // Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 GMT >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>The hard-fork is conditional to 95% of the hashing power has approved >> >> >>the >> >> >>segwit2mb soft-fork and the segwit soft-fork has been activated >> (which >> >> >>should occur 2016 blocks after its lock-in time) >> >> >> >> >> >>For more information on how soft-forks are signaled and activated, >> see >> >> >>https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0009.mediawiki >> >> >> >> >> >>This means that segwit would be activated before 2Mb: this is >> >> >>inevitable, >> >> >>as versionbits have been designed to have fixed activation periods >> and >> >> >>thresholds for all bits. Making segwit and 2Mb fork activate together >> >> >>at a >> >> >>delayed date would have required a major re-write of this code, which >> >> >>would >> >> >>contradict the premise of creating a minimalistic patch. However, >> once >> >> >>segwit is activated, the hard-fork is unavoidable. >> >> >> >> >> >>Although I have coded a first version of the segwit2mb patch (which >> >> >>modifies 120 lines of code, and adds 220 lines of testing code), I >> >> >>would >> >> >>prefer to wait to publish the source code until more comments have >> been >> >> >>received from the community. >> >> >> >> >> >>To prevent worsening block verification time because of the O(N^2) >> >> >>hashing >> >> >>problem, the simple restriction that transactions cannot be larger >> than >> >> >>1Mb >> >> >>has been kept. Therefore the worse-case of block verification time >> has >> >> >>only >> >> >>doubled. >> >> >> >> >> >>Regarding the hard-fork activation date, I want to give enough time >> to >> >> >>all >> >> >>active economic nodes to upgrade. As of Fri Mar 31 2017, >> >> >>https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/ reports that 6332 out of 6955 nodes >> (91%) >> >> >>have upgraded to post 0.12 versions. Upgrade to post 0.12 versions >> can >> >> >>be >> >> >>used to identify economic active nodes, because in the 0.12 release >> >> >>dynamic >> >> >>fees were introduced, and currently no Bitcoin automatic payment >> system >> >> >>can >> >> >>operate without automatic discovery of the current fee rate. A >> pre-0.12 >> >> >>would require constant manual intervention. >> >> >>Therefore I conclude that no more than 91% of the network nodes >> >> >>reported by >> >> >>bitnodes are active economic nodes. >> >> >> >> >> >>As Bitcoin Core 0.12 was released on February 2016, the time for this >> >> >>91% >> >> >>to upgrade has been around one year (under a moderate pressure of >> >> >>operational problems with unconfirmed transactions). >> >> >>Therefore we can expect a similar or lower time to upgrade for a >> >> >>hard-fork, >> >> >>after developers have discussed and approved the patch, and it has >> been >> >> >>reviewed and merged and 95% of the hashing power has signaled for it >> >> >>(the >> >> >>pressure not to upgrade being a complete halt of the operations). >> >> >>However I >> >> >>suggest that we discuss the hard-fork date and delay it if there is a >> >> >>real >> >> >>need to. >> >> >> >> >> >>Currently time works against the Bitcoin community, and so is >> delaying >> >> >>a >> >> >>compromise solution. Most of the community agree that halting the >> >> >>innovation for several years is a very bad option. >> >> >> >> >> >>After the comments collected by the community, a BIP will be written >> >> >>describing the resulting proposal details. >> >> >> >> >> >>If segwit2mb locks-in, before hard-fork occurs all bitcoin nodes >> should >> >> >>be >> >> >>updated to a Segwit2Mb enabled node to prevent them to be forked-away >> >> >>in a >> >> >>chain with almost no hashing-power. >> >> >> >> >> >>The proof of concept patch was made for Bitcoin Core but should be >> >> >>easily >> >> >>ported to other Bitcoin protocol implementations that already support >> >> >>versionbits. Lightweight (SPV) wallets should not be affected as they >> >> >>generally do not check the block size. >> >> >> >> >> >>I personally want to see the Lightning Network in action this year, >> use >> >> >>the >> >> >>non-malleability features in segwit, see the community discussing >> other >> >> >>exciting soft-forks in the scaling roadmap, Schnorr sigs, drivechains >> >> >>and >> >> >>MAST. >> >> >> >> >> >>I want to see miners, developers and industry side-by-side pushing >> >> >>Bitcoin >> >> >>forward, to increase the value of Bitcoin and prevent high >> transaction >> >> >>fees >> >> >>to put out of business use-cases that could have high positive social >> >> >>impact. >> >> >> >> >> >>I believe in the strength of a unified Bitcoin community. If you're a >> >> >>developer, please give your opinion, suggest changes, audit it, and >> >> >>take a >> >> >>stand with me to unlock the current Bitcoin deadlock. >> >> >> >> >> >>Contributions to the segwit2mb project are welcomed and awaited. The >> >> >>only >> >> >>limitation is to stick to the principle that the patch should be as >> >> >>simple >> >> >>to audit as possible. As an example, I wouldn't feel confident if the >> >> >>patch >> >> >>modified more than ~150 lines of code. >> >> >> >> >> >>Improvements unrelated to a 2 Mb increase or segwit, as beneficial as >> >> >>it >> >> >>may be to Bitcoin, should not be part of segwit2Mb. >> >> >> >> >> >>This proposal should not prevent other consensus proposals to be >> >> >>simultaneously merged: segwit2mb is a last resort solution in case we >> >> >>can >> >> >>not reach consensus on anything better. >> >> >> >> >> >>Again, the proposal is only a starting point: community feedback is >> >> >>expected and welcomed. >> >> >> >> >> >>Regards, >> >> >>Sergio Demian Lerner >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
