Topic: Last Time. In small words. Why 2MB impossible. Why Soft Fork. Why SegWit First.. - page 5. (Read 6499 times)

Because this is equal to censorship. Additionally, the average TX size is well above the "lean transaction size".

Immature transactions does not necessary equal to spam.

Yes they do (not always obviously). You have no argument as usual.

That does not equal to real world testing unless you can mimic the whole network on a smaller scale.

They could hold back or spam right away. Either way, an attack vector must not be left in the air at any cost.

Yes, the quadratic hashing problem will exist until it gets sorted out via a hard fork (see the Flextrans proposal, which is a HF proposal similar to SW but vastly inferior even though the incompetent devs claim its superiority). As I've told franky, pools can and will prioritize native-to-segwit and segwit-to-segwit transactions in the case of native-to-native spam attacks.

I don't agree with the instant jumping visions anyways. Why not 1.2 MB now, 1.4 MB next year and so on, until we hit 2 MB? These kind of approaches make more sense to me.

Why not? In a hard fork, in theory consensus rules can be changed without restrictions.




From my understanding, in a hard fork for unupgraded nodes it would not be possible to follow the new chain anymore. Even if 95% of all miners agree on a hard fork, unupgraded non-mining nodes would split away and couldn't use Bitcoin anymore in a safe way. In a soft fork with a 95% or even 85% approval by miners the minority unupgraded chain would always be orphaned and no node would follow it.

That's why a hard fork would need much more preparation time. A soft fork could be deployed in a few months, a hard fork needs a year or so to ensure all relevant nodes are upgraded.
(If that's wrong correct me.)

We could spam the testnet for that if nobody does it. Your point is, I suppose, that someone would hold back spam attacks until the maximal block size becomes big enough (e.g. 8 MB)?


Wouldn't then the quadratic hashing time problem be unsolved forever? Because the problem seems to be the danger of spam attacks based on that problem, and if non-Segwit tx are possible then a spammer obviously will use them. I think as long as it is possible to transfer non-segwit outputs to segwit keys (non-segwit to non-segwit would be the possibility that would have to be prohibited) the precedent is not dangerous.



2 MB + SW in my idea would occur in >2019. If Bitcoin's growth continues at the same speed than until now (30-50% transaction volume growth per year) then we could see pretty full mempools then. OK, maybe not if sidechains or extension blocks are functioning.

Maybe it was not clear but of course I am assuming a significant hashrate majority. Then there is no need for replay protection because the chain will always converge to the new chain. If you still disagree please explain.

Of course a hardfork is cleaner but the amount of tech debt the softfork causes is acceptable and it more than makes up for it in risk mitigation.

LOL guaranteed. LOL

do pools prioritise LEAN transactions to allow more transactions in.. nope
do pools prioritise mature transactions to evade spammers.. nope (spam: those that intentionally respend every block)
do pools prioritise transactions with fee.. nope (empty blocks/btcc zero fee confirm)

you HOPE and have FAITH that pools will.. but 65% of pools are abstaining or saying no to wanting to prioritise segwit as a protocol. so they are not going to prioritise segwit transactions.

in short. no guarantee, no fix. just gesture, half expectations and faith
much like the expectation of
"if pools prioritise lean tx's we can get 7tx/s 2009-2017".. yet in last 8 years never had a block of 7tx/s

yes on testnet it can be seen but thats test net where 1 person is creating the tx's in a certain agenda display of expectation.. when dealing with real world people using it for real world needs. reality does not reach expectation or hope

P.S your "2.1mb" expectation is the exact same 7tx/s expectation that has been promoted since 2009.. but never reached
its all if's maybe's half gestures hopes faith trust.. not actual real rules that enforce it

yeah i know but he asked specifically for a coins without segwit that use a block size more than 1 MB, just to see if other coin are in the line with BU probably....

Straw man argument, again.

Which is guaranteed to happen

Those two can be rewritten into one point. The obvious solution, which I've been telling you about is, prioritizing native -> SW and SW -> SW transactions.

Obviously it helps, but without segwit LTC would have no selling point. Who wants a BTC clone with prospects to get anything new done? that was LTC before segwit. In this post-segwit reality, LTC can shine to unforeseen prices thanks to what segwit being activated means, this creates a big bullish pressure that Coinbase can cater for.
But of course, anti segwit FUDsters will never admit segwit drives the value of a coin up objectively speaking.

segwit only = bigger block ONLY IF:
1. users move funds to segwit keys
2. segwit keys get accepted into blocks
3. native spammers dont fill the base block with native spam

so charlie Lee working at coinbase has nothing to do with it.

Jonald is a paid joke. There is no way that CoinBase would have added LTC without SW. With SW and LN, LTC has a potential future in which you can transact both Bitcoin and Litecoin via the same Lightning Network!

Segwit == block size > 1 MB.

The faulty understanding is that Segwit != bigger blocks. Just because it handles data differently, that doesn't mean that the block aren't bigger.

he asked for an altcoin with more than 1 mb block, nothing is incorrect, bitcore is the only one with more than 1 mb block, it has 20 mb

what you listed are coins with segwit only, not bigger blocks

It all started because of segwit. Without segwit, LTC would be rotting in stagnation, but thanks to segwit, lightning network developers are going to move there, so LTC will get tons of features that are impossible without segwit. Exchanges will show interest and LTC will solidify as a solid altcoin.

Meanwhile BTC remains as it is today due miners not following economic majority. I believe sooner or later the balance will fall into segwit, but until then, LTC remains bullish. There will be ups and downs anyway, but this is no longer an isolated pump and dump, the fundamentals are clear.

no what I mean is as the block insensitive drops and (if) usage goes up the block reward would compensate miners.

so a 10 mb  x  full use at 1/5 fees would give more 2 x more at 1 unit of fee in 1mb block size so it would word for usage and miners.

Now is it the case that LN would allow all of the extra fees of chain, and so make BTC less attractive miners and keep fees high?

Totally..


As soon as the blocks aren't full.. the fee market will collapse. Any fee will do.

people are bored of this::

A plague on both your houses::

do both segwit and 2MB

LTC now provides a credible test bed and alternative.

BTC is shooting itself in the foot, did you notice how it has lost dominance so much, LTC has just done what 30% in 1 or 2 days.

The only thing  I don't quite get is it that miners want larger blocks so they can collect more fee's but the LN + segwit will mean they face much less fees for miners?

There is a chain split if there is a division of hash power between old and new rule sets. The only difference is that a soft fork is backwards compatible with older node software, whereas a hard fork isn't.

In the event of a successful soft fork, older nodes continue to operate as normal.
In the event of a successful hard fork, older nodes become unsynced and have to upgrade.

In the event of a contentious fork, hard of soft, it becomes an economically damaging clusterfuck until the winning fork is determined (the longest chain) or a bilateral split occurs (the minority chain implements replay protection).

A hard fork which is hacked as a soft fork (where backwards compatibility is an illusionary hack), the soft fork functionality has to be sufficiently locked in before activation to prevent the backwards compatibility hacks from being exploited. In this case, an older node appears to operate as normal, but it really isn't because it is being fooled by filtered hacked data.

This is a cool explanation.


But there is no chain split on a soft fork.. That's the WHOLE point ?


LOL.. pls.. Give credit where it's due.. Maybe CoinBase added it BECAUSE of SW..  or at least Coinbase were convinced into adding it, becuase of SW.

It's not as bad as you make out.. Come and Join us! (If you want a $10k BTC.. that is.).. still plenty of room..

This is incorrect. There are 4 that already have activated it or are just about to activate it:
1) Groestlcoin: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/anngrs-groestlcoin-1st-to-activate-segwit-building-lightning-network-525926
2) Vertcoin (will activate in a few days due to pressure via UASF): https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/vertcoin-first-scrypt-n-first-stealth-address-privacy-without-mixer-404364
3) Litecoin: Activates in a few days too.
4) Digibyte: https://segwit.digiexplorer.info/

this is the only one, pretty new still https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annmain-bitcore-btx-datacarriersize-up-to-220-bytes-1883902, has segwit and it's a clone of bitcoin in everything with 20MB block

but they don't need that of course their transactions per day can't dream to be on par with bitcoin, and there are no ddos or spam attack there

started out as sw pump but when coinbase adopted it, could actually get some more use, that is much more real fundamental value than sw.