Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function
Matt : I think proposal #1 and #3 are a lot better than #2, and #1 is my favorite. I see two problems with proposal #2. The first problem with proposal #2 is that, as we see in democracies, there is often a mismatch between the people conscious vote and these same people behavior. Relying on an intentional vote made consciously by miners by choosing a configuration value can lead to twisted results if their actual behavior doesn't correlate with their vote (eg, they all vote for a small block size because it is the default configuration of their software, and then they fill it completely all the time and everything crashes). The second problem with proposal #2 is that if Gavin and Mike are right, there is simply no time to gather a meaningful amount of votes over the coinbases, after the fork but before the Bitcoin scalability crash. I like proposal #1 because the vote is made using already available data. Also there is no possible mismatch between behavior and vote. As a miner you vote by choosing to create a big (or small) block, and your actions reflect your vote. It is simple and straightforward. My feelings on proposal #3 is it is a little bit mixing apples and oranges, but I may not seeing all the implications. Le ven. 8 mai 2015 à 09:21, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name a écrit : Between all the flames on this list, several ideas were raised that did not get much attention. I hereby resubmit these ideas for consideration and discussion. - Perhaps the hard block size limit should be a function of the actual block sizes over some trailing sampling period. For example, take the median block size among the most recent 2016 blocks and multiply it by 1.5. This allows Bitcoin to scale up gradually and organically, rather than having human beings guessing at what is an appropriate limit. - Perhaps the hard block size limit should be determined by a vote of the miners. Each miner could embed a desired block size limit in the coinbase transactions of the blocks it publishes. The effective hard block size limit would be that size having the greatest number of votes within a sliding window of most recent blocks. - Perhaps the hard block size limit should be a function of block-chain length, so that it can scale up smoothly rather than jumping immediately to 20 MB. This function could be linear (anticipating a breakdown of Moore's Law) or quadratic. I would be in support of any of the above, but I do not support Mike Hearn's proposed jump to 20 MB. Hearn's proposal kicks the can down the road without actually solving the problem, and it does so in a controversial (step function) way. -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] The difficulty of writing consensus critical code: the SIGHASH_SINGLE bug
Thinking out loud here : would it make sense to separate the consensus code into some kind of Bitcoin Kernel (similar to the Linux Kernel) project that could be used by anyone ? Bitcoin Core (and any other application wishing to do so) could be based on it. The kernel would just contain the absolute minimum code for reaching consensus, leaving every other aspects of the implementation to the applications built with it. It would be stateless : it would provide an interface to submit a block/transaction to be validated, including the context needed to validate it (the previously validated blocks referenced by this block/transaction). What do you think ? Clément Le Fri Nov 07 2014 at 9:49:05 AM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org a écrit : On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 09:07:47AM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote: Peter, forking would work best with a freeze of the consensus code. Do you see any chance for that? To a first approximation the consensus code *is* frozen; if we introduce any consensus changes into it at this point it's due to a mistake, not intentionally. Of course, that's not including the two serious soft-fork proposals in the air right now, Pieter Wuille's BIP62 and my CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY. However dealing with proposed changes like those in an environment where the competing implementations all use essentially the same consensus-critical code is much easier than in an environment where they don't; I say this on both a technical and political level. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 0c901eb1b6b765519b99c3afd7a9062ff4cfa29666ce140d -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
[Bitcoin-development] Getting trusted metrics from the block chain in an untrusted environment ?
Hello all, I'm designing a program that needs some metrics computed from the Bitcoin block chain (some address balances, or the occurrence or not of a specific transaction). The kind of infos you get from http://blockchain.info/, provided you trust this website (my program do not). My program should run on lightweight/embedded hardware. The execution environment provides access to the Bitcoin network but not enough resources to set up a trusted node along with my program. Also, my program trusts the global Bitcoin network but no individual node. I would need a way to ask an untrusted Bitcoin node to compute some 'metric request' on my behalf and having the result of that metric request validated by the network. Is there any available or work-in-progress projects that would come close to this need ? Or should I do it myself ? :-) Thank you all, Clément Elbaz -- Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Getting trusted metrics from the block chain in an untrusted environment ?
Some more thoughts : If no such project exist yet, I thought it could work with an alternate, small and fixed-length 'metric request block chain' of some sort. It would temporarily stores structures defined as [metric request | current block number when request was made | hash of the response] instead of financial transactions. These structures are verifiable so it could work the same way as a regular financial blochchain. It should not be part of the main Bitcoin protocol but could be a plugin interacting with the data managed by the fullnode bitcoin software. Also, metrics requests can be expensive to compute and validate, so it would make sense to pay a fee everytime you ask one. Does any of this makes any sense to you ? Thanks, Clément -- Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
