<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1cq4ttqvgeumwkxgade8yj50skkddse9s0d5v269e3qxdsg2ac8sqrqgyzy

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsvq244sxyv7dhtrywkunjf28cttxkcvjc8k6x9dzucsrxcy9wurcqprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctv8j4tza

Publishing to

relay.snort.social

Last Notes

2023-06-07 18:03:24 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2017-06-19
📝 Original message:There has been proposal to change the PoW in case of potential 51% attacks
from malicious miners during a fork. But such a change in PoW renders
multi-billion-dollar of ASIC into worthless. which hurts economy so much
and the average innocent mining users. I would propose, instead of PoW
change, we could change the system to the same double sha256 PoW but mix it
with PoS features. Such a PoW+PoS system has several advantages:
* It protects existing multi-billion dollar investments from innocent
mining users,
* A malicious miner cannot launch attacks and rewrite the blockchain with
51% or even more hashrate,
* If we insert 4 PoS blocks between 2 PoW blocks, we'll have 2-minute block
time span, that solves the long confirmation time problem,
* We'll suddenly have 5 times of block space, that solves the scaling
problem,
* The PoS blocks only mine transaction fees, so the 21M cap remains,
* With careful design, the PoW+PoS transition _might_ be able to deploy
with a soft fork.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170620/8b2e692c/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 17:58:02 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2017-03-28
📝 Original message:The basic idea is, let's stop the debate for whether we should upgrade
to 2MB, 8MB or 32MiB. 32MiB is well above any proposals' upper limit,
so any final decision would be a soft fork to this already deployed
release. If by 2020, we still agree 1MB is enough, it can be changed
back to 1MB limit and it would also a soft fork on top of that.
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Alphonse Pace <alp.bitcoin at gmail.com> wrote:
> What meeting are you referring to? Who were the participants?
>
> Removing the limit but relying on the p2p protocol is not really a true
> 32MiB limit, but a limit of whatever transport methods provide. This can
> lead to differing consensus if alternative layers for relaying are used.
> What you seem to be asking for is an unbound block size (or at least
> determined by whatever miners produce). This has the possibility (and even
> likelihood) of removing many participants from the network, including many
> small miners.
>
> 32MB in less than 3 years also appears to be far beyond limits of safety
> which are known to exist far sooner, and we cannot expect hardware and
> networking layers to improve by those amounts in that time.
>
> It also seems like it would be much better to wait until SegWit activates in
> order to truly measure the effects on the network from this increased
> capacity before committing to any additional increases.
>
> -Alphonse
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> I've proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Consensus
>> but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than
>> one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I would
>> post this here again for comment.
>>
>> The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should
>> be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.
>>
>> Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its
>> limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to
>> remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in
>> the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block
>> halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is
>> the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be
>> in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.
>>
>> With this patch in core's next release, Bitcoin works just as before,
>> no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there
>> will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and
>> exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three
>> years.
>>
>> We don't yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size
>> limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like
>> BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so
>> on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core's
>> release, they all become soft fork. We'll have enough time to discuss
>> all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we
>> choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it
>> from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork.
>>
>> Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late.
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

2023-06-07 17:58:00 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2017-03-28
📝 Original message:I've proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Consensus
but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than
one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I would
post this here again for comment.
The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should
be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.
Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its
limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to
remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in
the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block
halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is
the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be
in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.
With this patch in core's next release, Bitcoin works just as before,
no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there
will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and
exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three
years.
We don't yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size
limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like
BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so
on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core's
release, they all become soft fork. We'll have enough time to discuss
all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we
choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it
from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork.
Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late.