Can anyone summarize BIP-100, BIP-101 and BIP-102 proposals?

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:

1. Hard fork, to
2. Remove static 1MB block size limit.
3. Simultaneously*, add a new floating block size limit, set to 1MB.
4. The historical 32MB limit remains.
5. Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015.
6. Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for January 11, 2016.
7. 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.
8. Limit increase or decrease may not exceed 2x in any one step.
9. 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:

1. 8MB cap
2. doubling every two years (so 16MB in 2018)
3. for twenty years
4. earliest possible chain fork: 11 Jan 2016
5. 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