Topic: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB) - page 12. (Read 14409 times)

OK, 10 MB looks good for me (it would be possible to handle at least 50 million users with that) - and it's also close to Franky's 8 MB. With Segwit, if I understand it well, that transaction capacity (30 tps) would be equivalent to a 2-4 MB limit approximately.

Well, there is yet another effect which seems rarely discussed. Under The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, there are essentially two classes of bitcoins. Those that have been created by legacy, and those which have been created by SegWit. This is by definition a destruction of fungibility.

How important fungibility is to you is something only you can decide.

this is your mis understanding
the 20k limit (old v0.12) is the BLOCK LIMIT for sigops
the 4000 is the TRANSACTION limit
meaning a malicious spammer can make 5 TX of 4,000 sigops in v0.12 without and FILL THE BLOCKS sigop limit (no more tx's allowed)

the 80k limit (v0.14) is the BLOCK LIMIT for sigops
the 16000 is the TRANSACTION limit
meaning a malicious spammer can make 5 TX of 16,000 sigops in v0.12 without and FILL THE BLOCK sigop limit (no more tx's allowed)

as for your link - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8438

meaning they acknowledge they are allowing transactions to be more quadratically used to attack.

they simply think that its not a problem. but lets say in the future. things move forward. if they then made it 32000sigops per tx. and 160,000 per block. still thats 5 tx per block and also because a native malicious user will do it .. the TIME to process 5tx of 32,000 compared to last years 5tx of 4000 will impact...

---

the solution is yes increase BLOCK sigop limits. but dont increase TX sigop limits. keep it low 16,000 maybe but preferably 4000 as a constant barrier against native key malicious quadratic creators.
meaning if it was 80,000 a malicious user has to make 20 tx to fill the blocks 80,000 limit. instead of just 5..
and because its only 4000X20 instead of 16,000X5 the validation time is improved
but they havnt

Did any soft fork that came before it create a two tier network system? At least with a hard fork miners will not create segwit blocks until the vast majority of nodes have upgraded. Those who find there nodes unable to sync will upgrade there nodes. With the two tier network system introduced with the SWSF, nodes that have not been upgraded are being filtered data, so they are no longer full nodes. This appears to be a mechanism to bypass full node consensus, if the miners agree to start creating segwit blocks. Miners that do not wish to upgrade find they have too or risk having their blocks orphaned, so are basically forced to upgrade. Please someone correct my misunderstanding, otherwise I have a right to feel rather uncomfortable about this.

As soon as you admit to being wrong with your "numbers". We all know that day won't come.

admit there is a 2 tiered system. not the word twisting

Segwit is like any other soft fork before it. Nodes that do not update, do not validate new rules..Alternatively in the HF, nodes that do not update are cut off from the network.

No, you misunderstand this completely. This is absurd. You can create a TX with 20k sigops maximum, you just can't do this with Core. You're confusing policy and consensus rules and you're misread the code. See this for example: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8438

This is my biggest concern about segwit being implemented as a soft fork. All nodes are equal until they are not. If it was implemented as a hard fork, we wouldn't have this two tier network system, if I understand correctly.

i used 0.12 as an example of how many quadratics were permissible prior to segwit
and
i used 0.14 as an example of how many quadratics were permissible post segwit
prior: 4000
post: 16000

but in actual fact it is not v0.14 =4000 prior segwit its actually still 16,000 prior segwit (for pools using these uptodate versions EG 0.14 today)
check the code

You almost made me fall for this.. I was too tired to check whether your numbers were true or not myself right away. That '80000' number is the Segwit number, i.e. it is scaled for the 4 MB weight. 80 000/4 = 20 000. Now if you apply 'MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS_COST/5;' on this number, you get.. 4000.  

I'm not exactly sure how to mitigate the DOS vector in that case. If that was mitigated in some way, I'd say 10 MB upper limit for the next 5 years. I doubt that someone could expect that we'd need more than 30 TPS + all the secondary layer solutions so quickly.

The 20 MB I mentioned before were calculated by the straightforward traditional [non-segwit] way. So to compare to my previous calculation, and because unfortunately Segwit is still not active, I would be more interested in the "traditionally-calculated" value. But you can obviously add an estimation for a post-Segwit size.

something we can agree on.. needing segwit nodes as the 'upstream filters' (gmaxwell own buzzword) is bad for security. plus its not "backward compatible"

i prefer the term backward trimmed(trimmable), or backwards 'filtered' (using gmaxwells word) to make it clearer old nodes are not getting full validatable blockdata
not a perfect term. but atleast its slightly more clearer of what segwit is "offering" compared to the half truths and half promises and word twisting to offset giving a real answer.

I've asked for a refreshment about 'parallel validation':

Note that this requires believing that making nodes that currently operate in a trustless manner suddenly dependent upon others for security fits the definition of 'backwards compatible'. I think that definition of 'backwards compatible' is ludicrous. YMMV.

The 'DoS' doesn't even require a protocol change to nullify. Indeed, there is a natural incentive already in the protocol that ensures it will never become a systemic problem. If large-time-to-verify-blocks ever became A Thing, miners will employ parallel validation. This will ensure that such large-time-to-verify-blocks will be orphaned by faster-to-verify-blocks.

Miners who gravitate to parallel validation will earn more income, and miners who do not employ parallel validation will become bankrupted over time. As will miners who create such DoS blocks.

This is already part of the protocol. No change is needed.

Are you trying to say that Bitcoin can be DOS'ed at 1 MB now?

No. You can refuse to use Segwit if you do not want to.

No. Soft forks are backwards compatible, therefore mitigating the risk of a network split.

Yes.
It sounded like I was talking to Roger Ver for a second, but okay.

Then encourage it, but don't spread it around like it is trivial until we know for 'sure'.

Noted. My bad.

We also need to determine whether we are talking about a block size in the traditional sense or a post-Segwit 'base + weight' size (as the "new" block size). Which is it?

Maybe we've different opinions here. I believe Bitcoin's value comes mainly from its usability as a value transfer (and later, also value storage) platform for many use cases among many users ("network effect") and its advantage ahead of similar cryptocurrencies ("altcoins"). But that could lead to a long discussion, so here in this thread, let's focus on the block size issue.

Then I would encourage research on that topic - I think it's inevitable at some point to provide "lighter" IBD procedures. Maybe Electrum and other light wallets could serve as objects in such a study.

I don't understand why you want me, as a user, to spend a lot of money to run my node in datacenters? I use Bitcoin Core for everything, node, wallet, cold storage.