[bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork?

jl2012 at xbt.hk jl2012 at xbt.hk
Wed Aug 19 10:34:38 UTC 2015

Jorge Timón 於 2015-08-19 05:24 寫到:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:54 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> As I understand, there is already a consensus among core dev that 
>> block size
>> should/could be raised. The remaining questions are how, when, how 
>> much, and
>> how fast. These are the questions for the coming Bitcoin Scalability
>> Workshops but immediate consensus in these issues are not guaranteed.
>> Could we just stop the debate for a moment, and agree to a scheduled
>> experimental hardfork?
>> Objectives (by order of importance):
>> 1. The most important objective is to show the world that reaching 
>> consensus
>> for a Bitcoin hardfork is possible. If we could have a successful one, 
>> we
>> would have more in the future
> Apart from classifying all potential consensus rule changes and
> recommend a deployment path for each case, deploying an
> uncontroversial hardfork is one of the main goals of bip99:
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009837.html
>> 2. With a slight increase in block size, to collect data for future
>> hardforks
> The uncontroversial hardfork doesn't need to change the maximum block
> size: there's plenty of hardfork proposals out there, some of them
> very well tested (like the proposed hardfork in bip99).

You misunderstand my intention. The experiment is not about a random 
hardfork. It's about a block size increase hardfork. The data will help 
us to design further hardfork on block size.

To make it less controversial, the size must not be too big.

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.

That's why I suggest 1.5MB.

>> 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.

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)

The problem is many people won't update until they must do so. So 4 
months or 1 year make little difference

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list