New Bitcoin Scaling Solutions SegWit2MB, Extension Blocks Vie For Popularity

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: mynhpark on April 04, 2017, 08:41:52 AM

Two new scaling solutions, SegWit2MB and extension blocks, are getting praise and scorn from Bitcoin’s best-known names.
Segregated Witness implementation with 2-megabyte blocks, itself not a new concept, is gathering prominence now after Bitcoin security engineer Sergio Lerner introduced it to the Core mailing list.
While not a “perfect” solution either technically or politically, Lerner notes, it goes some way towards being a compromise in an increasingly stagnant scaling debate deadlock.

What is your comment on this?

Segwit=DeadWit

Either increase BlockSize or move to a faster Blockspeed,
Transaction capacity could be increased at least 20X by just doing that alone.

Any type of added blocks like a train car is worth exploring, but it is quite a while, before this concept is explored enough to be safe.

Blocksize and BlockSpeed can be done immediately, and should be as the results are alot more understood,
than the added block systems (that no one has even coded yet.)

Cool

amacar2

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1007

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Quote from: andrew24p on April 04, 2017, 09:32:17 AM

I think the danger in a fork comes if it splits the community.

Split of community is not the only danger after hard fork, there is also danger of replay attack.

Quote from: andrew24p on April 04, 2017, 09:32:17 AM

I want segwit for transaction mal fix which in return is bases for lightning , but I also think that a 2 MB fork if BU agrees isnt as dangerous as many believe it to be.

With soft fork we will not have split of chain that's why i am in favor of core (segwit).

andrew24p

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

As long as we make progress I dont care which solution gets chosen honestly. I want segwit for transaction mal fix which in return is bases for lightning , but I also think that a 2 MB fork if BU agrees isnt as dangerous as many believe it to be. I think the danger in a fork comes if it splits the community. A compromise hard fork isnt that.

numismatist

legendary

Activity: 1245

Merit: 1004

Quote from: lurker10 on April 04, 2017, 08:59:48 AM

If Litecoin can survive with 4 MB blocks every 2.5 minutes and Segwit, how can Bitcoin nodes not survive with 2 MB blocks every 10 minutes and Segwit?

It could all of a sudden on parity day, 1 LTC == 1 BTC you would be astonished about the sudden agility in a formerly lethargic place.

paul gatt

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 500

I'm not interested in solutions, What I care about is its effect, there are many solutions that have been proposed, however, I have not seen any effect from it, in contrary, it slows down the bitcoin, For a long time. BU is a typical example, it's a bad thing. Segwit is a good thing, but I want it good for everyone, so, I wish it was a perfect solution.

lurker10

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

If Litecoin can survive with 4 MB blocks every 2.5 minutes and Segwit, how can Bitcoin nodes not survive with 2 MB blocks every 10 minutes and Segwit?

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

I'd be wary of any one off blocksize increase tied into segwit activation, because then we need to beg for the next blocksize increase. Segwit as a hard fork along with dynamic block sizes (or just simply removing the cap altogether and letting the miners decide using the old soft cap method) would be the best solution in my opinion.
For bitcoin to grow, we need both on-chain transaction capacity and reliable off-chain services. Segwit as a hard fork would also reduce the technical debt associated with the two tier network solution it imposes, all nodes should be equal. Also, the segwit weight to blocksize could then be 1:1. Restricting on-chain scaling I fear will only have one outcome:

Quote from: AngryDwarf

By keeping blocksize small, we limit the blockchain to a high value settlement layer. Small payments can be made through the Lightning Network.
By keeping blocksize small, the fees for moving transactions on the blockchain escalates. This wipes out users of small UTXO's. Only large value BTC holders will be able to open and close a Lightning Network channel.
By keeping blocksize small, we have wiped out the savings of small users. These users are now completely excluded from opening and closing lightning network channels.
To enable small users to use the Lightning Network, we will have to introduce a BTC derivative token which is backed by a big BTC holders reserves.

Basically, LN hubs will become the banking network, and large BTC holders opening channels on the lightning network will become the bankers.
I just can't see the world's population being able to afford to use the settlement blockchain layer at all.

Xester

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 544

Quote from: mynhpark on April 04, 2017, 08:41:52 AM

Two new scaling solutions, SegWit2MB and extension blocks, are getting praise and scorn from Bitcoin’s best-known names.
Segregated Witness implementation with 2-megabyte blocks, itself not a new concept, is gathering prominence now after Bitcoin security engineer Sergio Lerner introduced it to the Core mailing list.
While not a “perfect” solution either technically or politically, Lerner notes, it goes some way towards being a compromise in an increasingly stagnant scaling debate deadlock.

What is your comment on this?

When segwit is approved we will have no need for any consensus since they will automatically adjust the blocksize limit and capacity. But what kind of choice do we have but to accept segwit and all the solutions they made. Even if we present our ideas there is no helping it that the future of bitcoin now rests on the shoulder of segwit. And by the way any kind of scaling solution will do as long as segwit can solve the current issues and problems within bitcoin network.

lurker10

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Segwit2Mb is a decent compromise for all factions. Not as decent as Segwit4Mb or Segwit8Mb but ok. Core doesn't want to compromise and that is the real problem. Unfortunately damage has been done, community is divided half by half and absent compromise like Segwit2Mb there is no way to get 90% of the community back in the same boat.

mynhpark

full member

Activity: 378

Merit: 101

Two new scaling solutions, SegWit2MB and extension blocks, are getting praise and scorn from Bitcoin’s best-known names.
Segregated Witness implementation with 2-megabyte blocks, itself not a new concept, is gathering prominence now after Bitcoin security engineer Sergio Lerner introduced it to the Core mailing list.
While not a “perfect” solution either technically or politically, Lerner notes, it goes some way towards being a compromise in an increasingly stagnant scaling debate deadlock.

What is your comment on this?

Topic: New Bitcoin Scaling Solutions SegWit2MB, Extension Blocks Vie For Popularity (Read 557 times)