Re: [bitcoin-dev] A roadmap to a better header format and bigger block size
As for your stages idea, I generally like the idea (and mentioned it may be a good idea in my proposal), but am worried about scheduling two hard-forks at onceLets do our first hard-fork first with the things we think we will need anytime in the visible future that we have reasonable designs for now, and talk about a second one after we've seen what did/didnt blow up with the first one. Anyway, this generally seems reasonable - it looks like most of this matches up with what I said more specifically in my mail yesterday, with the addition of timewarp fixes, which we should probably add, and Luke's header changes, which I need to spend some more time thinking about. Matt On 02/09/16 14:16, jl2012--- via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I would like to present a 2-3 year roadmap to a better header format and > bigger block size > > Objectives: > > 1. Multistage rule changes to make sure everyone will have enough time to > upgrade > 2. Make mining easier, without breaking existing mining hardware and the > Stratum protocol > 3. Make future hardfork less disruptive (with Luke-Jr's proposal) > > Stage 1 is Segregated Witness (BIP141), which will not break any existing > full or light nodes. This may happen in Q2-Q3 2016 > > Stage 2 is fixes that will break existing full nodes, but not light nodes: > a. Increase the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE (the exact value is not suggested in this > roadmap), potentially change the witness discount > b. Anti-DoS rules for the O(n^2) validation of non-segwit scripts > c. (optional) Move segwit's commitments to the header Merkle tree. This is > optional at this stage as it will be fixed in Stage 3 anyway > This may happen in Q1-Q2 2017 > > Stage 3 is fixes that will break all existing full nodes and light nodes: > a. Full nodes upgraded to Stage 2 will not need to upgrade again, as the > rules and activation logic should be included already > b. Change the header format to Luke-Jr's proposal, and move all commitments > (tx, witness, etc) to the new structure. All existing mining hardware with > Stratum protocol should work. > c. Reclaiming unused bits in header for mining. All existing mining chips > should still work. Newly designed chips should be ready for the new rule. > d. Fix the time warp attack > This may happen in 2018 to 2019 > > Pros: > a. Light nodes (usually less tech-savvy users) will have longer time to > upgrade > b. The stage 2 is opt-in for full nodes. > c. The stage 3 is opt-in for light nodes. > > Cons: > a. The stage 2 is not opt-in for light nodes. They will blindly follow the > longest chain which they might actually don't want to > b. Non-upgraded full nodes will follow the old chain at Stage 2, which is > likely to have lower value. > c. Non-upgraded light nodes will follow the old chain at Stage 3, which is > likely to have lower value. (However, this is not a concern as no one should > be mining on the old chain at that time) > > --- > An alternative roadmap would be: > > Stage 2 is fixes that will break existing full nodes and light nodes. > However, they will not follow the minority chain > a. Increase the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE, potentially change the witness discount > b. Anti-DoS rules for the O(n^2) validation of non-segwit scripts > c. Change the header format to Luke-Jr's proposal, and move all commitments > (tx, witness, etc) to the new structure. > This may happen in mid 2017 or later > > Stage 3 is fixes that will break all existing full nodes and light nodes. > a. Full nodes and light nodes upgraded to Stage 2 will not need to upgrade > again, as the rules and activation logic should be included already > b. Reclaiming unused bits in header for mining. All existing mining chips > should still work. > c. Fix the time warp attack > This may happen in 2018 to 2019 > > Pros: > a. The stage 2 and 3 are opt-in for everyone > b. Even failing to upgrade, full nodes and light nodes won't follow the > minority chain at stage 2 > > Cons: > a. Non-upgraded full/light nodes will follow the old chain at Stage 3, which > is likely to have lower value. (However, this is not a concern as no one > should be mining on the old chain at that time) > b. It takes longer to implement stage 2 to give enough time for light node > users to upgrade > > --- > > In terms of safety, the second proposal is better. In terms of disruption, > the first proposal is less disruptive > > I would also like to emphasize that it is miners' responsibility, not the > devs', to confirm that the supermajority of the community accept changes in > Stage 2 and 3. > > Reference: > Matt Corallo's proposal: > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012403. > html > Luke-Jr's proposal: > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012377. > html > > > > > > ___ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >
Re: [bitcoin-dev] A roadmap to a better header format and bigger block size
I believe i've seen Luke say this several times before, but there are several more things that the majority of the devs agree should be in bitcoin. I would suggest to compile that list for your stage 3, so that you can have an hardfork that fixes most of those things, and there should be some repository with those changes deployed. 2016-02-09 14:16 GMT+00:00 jl2012--- via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > I would like to present a 2-3 year roadmap to a better header format and > bigger block size > > Objectives: > > 1. Multistage rule changes to make sure everyone will have enough time to > upgrade > 2. Make mining easier, without breaking existing mining hardware and the > Stratum protocol > 3. Make future hardfork less disruptive (with Luke-Jr's proposal) > > Stage 1 is Segregated Witness (BIP141), which will not break any existing > full or light nodes. This may happen in Q2-Q3 2016 > > Stage 2 is fixes that will break existing full nodes, but not light nodes: > a. Increase the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE (the exact value is not suggested in this > roadmap), potentially change the witness discount > b. Anti-DoS rules for the O(n^2) validation of non-segwit scripts > c. (optional) Move segwit's commitments to the header Merkle tree. This is > optional at this stage as it will be fixed in Stage 3 anyway > This may happen in Q1-Q2 2017 > > Stage 3 is fixes that will break all existing full nodes and light nodes: > a. Full nodes upgraded to Stage 2 will not need to upgrade again, as the > rules and activation logic should be included already > b. Change the header format to Luke-Jr's proposal, and move all commitments > (tx, witness, etc) to the new structure. All existing mining hardware with > Stratum protocol should work. > c. Reclaiming unused bits in header for mining. All existing mining chips > should still work. Newly designed chips should be ready for the new rule. > d. Fix the time warp attack > This may happen in 2018 to 2019 > > Pros: > a. Light nodes (usually less tech-savvy users) will have longer time to > upgrade > b. The stage 2 is opt-in for full nodes. > c. The stage 3 is opt-in for light nodes. > > Cons: > a. The stage 2 is not opt-in for light nodes. They will blindly follow the > longest chain which they might actually don't want to > b. Non-upgraded full nodes will follow the old chain at Stage 2, which is > likely to have lower value. > c. Non-upgraded light nodes will follow the old chain at Stage 3, which is > likely to have lower value. (However, this is not a concern as no one > should > be mining on the old chain at that time) > > --- > An alternative roadmap would be: > > Stage 2 is fixes that will break existing full nodes and light nodes. > However, they will not follow the minority chain > a. Increase the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE, potentially change the witness discount > b. Anti-DoS rules for the O(n^2) validation of non-segwit scripts > c. Change the header format to Luke-Jr's proposal, and move all commitments > (tx, witness, etc) to the new structure. > This may happen in mid 2017 or later > > Stage 3 is fixes that will break all existing full nodes and light nodes. > a. Full nodes and light nodes upgraded to Stage 2 will not need to upgrade > again, as the rules and activation logic should be included already > b. Reclaiming unused bits in header for mining. All existing mining chips > should still work. > c. Fix the time warp attack > This may happen in 2018 to 2019 > > Pros: > a. The stage 2 and 3 are opt-in for everyone > b. Even failing to upgrade, full nodes and light nodes won't follow the > minority chain at stage 2 > > Cons: > a. Non-upgraded full/light nodes will follow the old chain at Stage 3, > which > is likely to have lower value. (However, this is not a concern as no one > should be mining on the old chain at that time) > b. It takes longer to implement stage 2 to give enough time for light node > users to upgrade > > --- > > In terms of safety, the second proposal is better. In terms of disruption, > the first proposal is less disruptive > > I would also like to emphasize that it is miners' responsibility, not the > devs', to confirm that the supermajority of the community accept changes in > Stage 2 and 3. > > Reference: > Matt Corallo's proposal: > > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012403. > html > Luke-Jr's proposal: > > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012377. > html > > > > > > ___ > 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
Re: [bitcoin-dev] A roadmap to a better header format and bigger block size
I am actually suggesting 1 hardfork, not 2. However, different rules are activated at different time to enhance safety and reduce disruption. The advantage is people are required to upgrade once, not twice. Any clients designed for stage 2 should also be ready for stage 3. -Original Message- From: Matt Corallo [mailto:lf-li...@mattcorallo.com] Sent: Wednesday, 10 February, 2016 06:15 To: jl2...@xbt.hk; bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A roadmap to a better header format and bigger block size As for your stages idea, I generally like the idea (and mentioned it may be a good idea in my proposal), but am worried about scheduling two hard-forks at onceLets do our first hard-fork first with the things we think we will need anytime in the visible future that we have reasonable designs for now, and talk about a second one after we've seen what did/didnt blow up with the first one. Anyway, this generally seems reasonable - it looks like most of this matches up with what I said more specifically in my mail yesterday, with the addition of timewarp fixes, which we should probably add, and Luke's header changes, which I need to spend some more time thinking about. Matt ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
