On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:34 PM, <jl2...@xbt.hk> wrote: > You misunderstand my intention. The experiment is not about a random > hardfork. It's about a block size increase hardfork.
One of your goals is "show the world that reaching consensus for a Bitcoin hardfork is possible", right? BIP99 can achieve that goal without touching the block size (thus probably less controversial). > The data will help us > to design further hardfork on block size. The data can be collected using testchains. See #6382 > To make it less controversial, the size must not be too big. That makes the data less interesting, doesn't it? > To allow a meaningful experiment, the size must not be too small. > Technically we could make it 1.01MB but that defeats all objectives I listed > and there is no point to do it. It wouldn't defeat the "show the world that reaching consensus for a Bitcoin hardfork is possible" objective though. But again, we don't need to touch the block size to achieve that goal. > That's why I suggest 1.5MB. But that wouldn't be uncontroversial (unless it was accompanied with data that somehow quantifies the risks, in which case maybe another bigger size is acceptable). >>> 1. Today, we all agree that some kind of block size hardfork will happen >>> on >>> t1=*1 June 2016* >> >> >> I disagree with this. I think it should be schedule at least a year >> after it is deployed in the newest versions. >> Maybe there's something special about June 2016 that I'm missing. > > > I hope the fork could be done before the halving, which (hopefully) we may > have a new bitcoin rush > > There was only 2 months for the BIP50 hardfork. You may argue that's a "bug > fix" but practically there is no difference: people not fixing the bug in 2 > months was forked off. Four months of grace period (Feb to June 2016) is > already a double of that. Yes, emergency hardforks are a different case as explained in BIP99's draft. In any case, " we all agree that some kind of block size hardfork will happen on June 2016" it's clearly false since I can find many counter-examples besides myself. > Also, if we could have zero grace period for softfork, why must we have a > ultra-long period for hardfork? (Unless you also agree to have an 1-year > grace period for softfork. I don't buy the "softfork is safer than hardfork" > theory. The recent BIP66 fork has clearly shown why it is wrong: > non-upgrading full nodes are not full nodes) I don't think giving 1 year for "everybody in the world" to upgrade is an "ultra-long" period. I'm proposing 5 years for the hardfork proposed in bip99. I do think softforks are safer than hardforks, that doesn't mean softforks don't have serious risks as well. > The problem is many people won't update until they must do so. So 4 months > or 1 year make little difference I disagree with this conclusion as well (it doesn't follow from the first sentence, non sequitur). _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
