Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

On Wed, February 10, 2016 5:14 pm, David Vorick via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> I love seeing data! I was considering 0.10 nodes as 'unmaintained' > because it has been a long time since the 0.11 release. > > https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/net-p2p/bitcoin-qt > > The Gentoo package manager still

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 6:14 AM, David Vorick via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I'm not clear on the utility of more nodes. Perhaps there is significant > concern about SPV nodes getting enough bandwidth or the network struggling > from the load? > It is

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

Happy Lunar New Year Everyone! Gavin, > I suspect there ARE a significant percentage of un-maintained full > nodes-- probably 30 to 40%. Losing those nodes will not be a problem, for > three reasons: The notion of large set ( 30% to 40% ) of un-maintained full nodes are not evident on the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Yifu Guo wrote: > > There are 406 nodes total that falls under the un-maintained category, > which is below 10% of the network. > Luke also have some data here that shows similar results. >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

> I love seeing data! I was considering 0.10 nodes as 'unmaintained' because it has been a long time since the 0.11 release. https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/net-p2p/bitcoin-qt The Gentoo package manager still has 0.10.2 as the most recent stable version. Getting a later version of the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Saturday, February 06, 2016 5:25:21 PM Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > On Saturday, February 06, 2016 06:09:21 PM Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > > None of the reasons

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Patrick Strateman via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I would expect that custodians who fail to produce coins on both sides > of a fork in response to depositor requests will find themselves in > serious legal trouble. > If the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

On Feb 7, 2016, at 9:24 AM, jl2...@xbt.hk wrote: > You are making a very naïve assumption that miners are just looking for > profit for the next second. Instead, they would try to optimize their short > term and long term ROI. It is also well known that some miners would mine at > a loss, even

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

Patrick, I would say that a company's terms of service should include their position on this issue. It does not seem reasonable that they all are required to provide access to coins on every single fork. Are custodial wallet users also entitled to Clam, Zcash, and Decred, and others? Regardless,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

Is it me or did Gavin ignore Yifu's direct questions? In case you missed it Gavin -- ~ "We can look at the adoption of the last major Bitcoin core release to guess how long it might take people to upgrade. 0.11.0 was released on 12 July, 2015. Twenty eight days later, about 38% of full nodes were

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

On Sunday, February 07, 2016 2:16:02 PM Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Saturday, February 06, 2016 5:25:21 PM Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > If you have a node that is "old" your

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

[mailto:bitcoin-dev-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev Sent: Monday, 8 February, 2016 01:11 To: Anthony Towns <a...@erisian.com.au> Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 meg

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

On Feb 6, 2016, at 9:21 PM, Jannes Faber via bitcoin-dev wrote: > They *must* be able to send their customers both coins as separate > withdrawals. > Supporting the obsolete chain is unnecessary. Such support has not been offered in any cryptocurrency

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 10:06:06AM -0500, Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev wrote: > And the back and forth discussion over your BIP has been in large part a > charade. People asking why you aren't picking 95% know very well why you > aren't, but lets have an honest discussion of what the risks and in

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

On Feb 7, 2016, at 7:19 AM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote: > The stated reasoning for 75% versus 95% is "because it gives "veto power" > to a single big solo miner or mining pool". But if a 20% miner wants to > "veto" the upgrade, with a 75%

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

I would expect that custodians who fail to produce coins on both sides of a fork in response to depositor requests will find themselves in serious legal trouble. Especially if the price moves against either fork. On 02/07/2016 10:55 AM, Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > On Feb 6, 2016,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

Segwit requires work from exchanges, wallets and services in order for adoption to happen. This is because segwit changes the rules regarding the Transaction data structure. A blocksize increase does not change the Transaction rules at all. The blocksize increase is a change to the Block

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

Its mostly a problem for exchanges and miners. Those entities need to be on the network 100% of the time because they are using the network 100% of the time. A normal wallet user isn't taking payments every few minutes like the exchanges are. "Getting booted off the network" is not something to

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

On Saturday, February 06, 2016 3:37:30 PM Gavin Andresen wrote: > I suspect there ARE a significant percentage of un-maintained full nodes-- Do you have evidence these are intentionally unmaintained, and not users who have simply not had time to review and decide on upgrading? > There is broad

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 12:45:14PM -0500, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Adam Back wrote: > > > > > It would probably be a good idea to have a security considerations > > section > > > Containing what? I'm not aware of any

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

On Saturday, February 06, 2016 06:09:21 PM Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: > None of the reasons you list say anything about the fact that "being lost" > (kicked out of the network) is a problem for those node's users. That's because its not. If you have a node that is "old" your node will

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Adam Back wrote: > > It would probably be a good idea to have a security considerations > section Containing what? I'm not aware of any security considerations that are any different from any other consensus rules change. (I can write a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

On Feb 6, 2016 16:37, "Gavin Andresen" wrote: > > Responding to "28 days is not long enough" : Any thoughts on the "95% better than 75%" and "grace period before miner coordination instead of after" comments ? > I suspect there ARE a significant percentage of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

Hi Gavin It would probably be a good idea to have a security considerations section, also, is there a list of which exchange, library, wallet, pool, stats server, hardware etc you have tested this change against? Do you have a rollback plan in the event the hard-fork triggers via false voting as

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes

On Friday, February 05, 2016 8:51:08 PM Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Blog post on a couple of the constants chosen: > http://gavinandresen.ninja/seventyfive-twentyeight Can you put this in the BIP's Rationale section (which appears to be mis-named "Discussion" in the current draft)?