BIP-100
Jeff Garzik proposes to remove the 1MB limit and let miners decide on future blocksizes. The fork would occur on January 2016 followed by blocksize upgrades every 3 months. Because the voting system might be easily rigged if large pools decide to play dirty the consensus must reach 90% instead of the usual 51% majority. Here is a short summary of the proposal:
- Hard fork, to
- Remove static 1MB block size limit.
- Simultaneously*, add a new floating block size limit, set to 1MB.
- The historical 32MB limit remains.
- Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015.
- Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for January 11, 2016.
- Changing the 1MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a oneway lockin upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold by 90% of the blocks.
- Limit increase or decrease may not exceed 2x in any one step.
- Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig, e.g. “/BV8000000/” to vote for 8M. Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen.
BIP-101
Gavin Andresen proposes to increase the blocksize limit to 8MB starting January of 2016 and gradually increase it over time in intervals of 2 years, doubling each time.. Just to be clear, once the 8Mb limit goes into effect the doubling of the size every 2 years will NOT cause a hard fork because the rules are going to be put into the network in the first hard fork.
Here are the proposed parameters:
Unit test and code for a bigger-block hard fork. Parameters are:
- 8MB cap
- doubling every two years (so 16MB in 2018)
- for twenty years
- earliest possible chain fork: 11 Jan 2016
- after miner supermajority (code in the next patch) 6 and grace period once miner supermajority achieved (code in next patch)
BIP 102
This is an alternative to BIP 100 from Jeff Garzik, as a fallback if other consensus about BIP-100 and BIP-101 is not reached in time. It allows for limited experimentation to explore a size increase without going overboard. But it’s not flexible, probably requires another hard fork, and still is an arbitrary [economic] policy not informed by the market, so inferior to BIP 100. However, having a minimum-agreed backup plan is better than no plan at all, wrotes Jeff Garzik.
Submitted August 26, 2015 at 02:24AM by ReneFroger http://bit.ly/1Px4nKR
No comments :
Post a Comment