Newly Convinced That BIP100 Is The Best Solution

[BitProdigy]

Though I'm also okay with BIP101 on Core 

Also could someone explain to me how this works:


How are the miners able to vote on these? They just "sign" the blocks that are mined with a vote? Can someone point me to a technical explanation thanks!

[hexafraction]

There is a small area for freeform text/arbitrary bytes in each block, that is hashed as part of the block hash. It contains strings that specify a vote for a specific BIP.

[knight22]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3id7f9/21_attack_possible_against_bip100/

[BitProdigy]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3id7f9/21_attack_possible_against_bip100/

Perhaps Garzik can amend the BIP100 proposal to accommodate this apparent block for BIP100 reaching consensus?? I agree that it seems to be a valid block.

[tadakaluri]

A rapidly growing amount of hash power is now publicly backing BIP 100, the proposal by Jeff Garzik that grants miners the right to vote the block-size limit up or down. Both F2Pool and BTCChina, as well as several smaller pools, have come out in support of BIP 100 in the past few days.

[fryarminer]

It's better than nothing I guess, but I still prefer BIP101. I don't think it's enough for long term.

[mookid]

I think the solution that results in the less amount of hard forks is the best.

[BitProdigy]

It's better than nothing I guess, but I still prefer BIP101. I don't think it's enough for long term.

Yeah I think me too, I keep going back and forth on it, I think I still prefer BIP101 after all. I'm undecided between 100 and 101 atm i guess, but I support either or.

[Mickeyb]

Well, we will have to meet somewhere in the middle to reach consensus and to solve this problem. BIP100 is some kind of middle, that's why it has gained so much traction so fast. People are tired of this debate. They want to solve it, leave it behind and move forward with the development. I am for BIP100 by the way.

[Lauda]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3id7f9/21_attack_possible_against_bip100/

Perhaps Garzik can amend the BIP100 proposal to accommodate this apparent block for BIP100 reaching consensus?? I agree that it seems to be a valid block.

There isn't even proof that this is a flaw. It solely depends on the interpretation of:

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.

I've yet to see a explanation of what Jeff really meant by this, as it seems like nobody really knows. Give it some time. A flaw in the paper won't necessarily result in a flaw in code, he will probably fix/change a few things before implementing them.
Update:
That is not what is meant by historical.

[dachnik]

If BIP100 is going to be amended, then fairly opaque statement

       The historical 32MB limit remains.

needs to be replaced with more explicit

       The original 1MB limit is replaced with the new 32MB limit.

to alleviate any confusion that may arise from what historical (never-approached, never-tested) limit actually means.

It reminds me of the hidden configuration issue that caused the fork when switching from BerkleyDB to LevelDB some time in March 2013.
Relying on some obscure historical legacy untested parameters is not a responsible decision, unless the intent is to slip a hole in there.

[dachnik]

That is not what is meant by historical.

I mean, we don't know how historical limit on "network message" size (32MB) affects the size of a single block that can, for example, be relayed using multiple messages (now or in the future). We never had blocks near 32MB, so this part of the BIP100 is untested and not guaranteed to specify a consistent behavior across multiple implementations of Bitcoin protocol. It's either an explicit limit on block size (like 1Mb) or it isn't. To be clarified.

[coinpr0n]

I support BIP100's voting mechanism above BIP101's one-way ticket to hell. Hard forks are still gonna have to happen in the future.

[helmax]

BIP101 is the best

[dachnik]

I support BIP100's voting mechanism above BIP101's one-way ticket to hell. Hard forks are still gonna have to happen in the future.

With BIP101 we will be at 32Mb limit not sooner than 2020, with BIP100's voting mechanism, however, we can get there already in a couple of years, but considering the hesitation of Chinese miners to go beyond 8Mb anytime soon and the psychological effect of there being a hard cap of 32Mb (if implemented properly), we likely (but not certainly) won't see any attempts to abuse and manipulate the block size beyond what the network can sustain with its current size.

Hard forks is a good way to reconcile the current issues and exercise achieving consensus on how to resolve them. If done every once in a while, it's healthy for Bitcoin and crypto-currencies in general, as it puts most active members on alert and reminds us how to stay vigilant. The profits we derive from ecosystem gaining momentum must be well deserved.

[Klestin]

"Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen."

What in the heck does this actually mean?  Aren't we picking the cap for the block size?  What is the talk of floor (minimum)?  What is the meaning of "most common" in this context?

In the case of a system set at 2 MB blocks, valid votes are between 1MB and 4MB.  If the votes are:

1 1 1 3 3.25  3.5 3.75  4 4 4

We then drop the top 20% and bottom 20%, leaving:

1 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4

What is the "most common floor (minimum)" in this vote?  If it's 1, then congratulations, you've just let 21% of the mining power dictate full control over the block size.

[CounterEntropy]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3id7f9/21_attack_possible_against_bip100/

Perhaps Garzik can amend the BIP100 proposal to accommodate this apparent block for BIP100 reaching consensus?? I agree that it seems to be a valid block.

You may like to check this - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154536.0

[knight22]

I dislike BIP100 only because it is not a long term solution and it guarantees us to have this debate all over again unlike BIP101.

[Lauda]

I dislike BIP100 only because it is not a long term solution and it guarantees us to have this debate all over again unlike BIP101.

Nope. Even though there is no real evidence that this was said by Gates, here it is:" 640K ought to be enough for anybody" (referring to RAM). Gavin said something similar with 8 GB blocks.
8 GB blocks do not guarantee a permanent solution. You're just speculating,and so is Gavin. Trying to predict stuff (in addition to not having solid evidence; not saying that this is the case here) is pointless as most of the time the prediction ends up wrong. The bigger time span you try to predict, the worse your odds for being correct are (good luck trying to predict what will happen 15-20 years from now).

BIP101 is the best

Based on what? Your personal opinion?

-snip-
What is the "most common floor (minimum)" in this vote?  If it's 1, then congratulations, you've just let 21% of the mining power dictate full control over the block size.

Wait for Jeff to clarify this on reddit or the mailing list.

[knight22]

I dislike BIP100 only because it is not a long term solution and it guarantees us to have this debate all over again unlike BIP101.

Nope. Even though there is no real evidence that this was said by Gates, here it is:" 640K ought to be enough for anybody" (referring to RAM). Gavin said something similar with 8 GB blocks.
8 GB blocks do not guarantee a permanent solution. You're just speculating,and so is Gavin. Trying to predict stuff (in addition to not having solid evidence; not saying that this is the case here) is pointless as most of the time the prediction ends up wrong. The bigger time span you try to predict, the worse your odds for being correct are (good luck trying to predict what will happen 15-20 years from now).

It is fairly easy to estimate how much transactions can be handle by a global usage. It's not that much speculating but yes, it is still a limit but at that point alternate solutions (AKA lightning and sidechains + shared market cap of other major altcoins) can come into play. 8 Gb is fairly enough to ensure a great amount of transaction fees to keep a large incentive to miners and ensure a maximum network security.