Topic: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB) - page 13. (Read 14392 times)

Quote from: Lauda on March 11, 2017, 04:20:26 PM

even core deemed 8mb network safe but decided 4mb super safe.. go ask your buddies.

Core deemed "8 MB network safe"? Where?
Segwit 8 MB weight safe != 8 MB block size limit safe.

So what is the technical reason for this to be the case?

For one (ignoring everything else): Linear sigops validation vs. quadratic validation.

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

even core deemed 8mb network safe but decided 4mb super safe.. go ask your buddies.

Core deemed "8 MB network safe"? Where?
Segwit 8 MB weight safe != 8 MB block size limit safe.

So what is the technical reason for this to be the case?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

if you want a private conversation between 2 people then go to Private message with them

You need to visit some courses in order to improve your faulty comprehension skills. We can discuss whenever we want and wherever we want.

even core deemed 8mb network safe but decided 4mb super safe.. go ask your buddies.

Core deemed "8 MB network safe"? Where?
Segwit 8 MB weight safe != 8 MB block size limit safe.

Quote from: Lauda on March 11, 2017, 04:13:11 PM

are you forgetting the example of dynamics . i even drew you a picture to keep your concentration span open

No. I'm asking you for the specifics of your proposal, but there are none apparently.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4270

Merit: 4534

Quote from: Lauda on March 11, 2017, 03:50:12 PM

You shouldn't be optimistic nor relying on speculative predictions of the future when it comes to Bitcoin's security.

then stop throwing speculations of things like 20mb blocks... or ur gangs other fake doomsdays of "gigabytes by midnight" "visa by tomorrow"

You are engaging in a discussion between another user and myself; we are free to discuss whatever we want and however we want. If you can't comprehend our discussion properly, then don't comment on it.

if you want a private conversation between 2 people then go to Private message with them

Quote from: Lauda on March 11, 2017, 04:13:11 PM

8mb upper limit and 2mb lower (dynamic) limit.

Where is the academic research backing up that 8 MB is safe as upper limit? For which time frame? How does the 2 MB grow to 8 MB? At what periods?

even core deemed 8mb network safe but decided 4mb super safe.. go ask your buddies.
as for how...

are you forgetting the example of dynamics . i even drew you a picture to keep your concentration span open.

what you need to understand by having the limits is that the NODES flag what they are happy with and POOLS work below that.
meaning it wont get out of control of what general nodes can cope with. because the nodes are flagging it.

oh and i remember rusty russel (blockstream) had some stats of 8mb being fine. so try not to proclaim that 8mb is evil as its your gangs own agreement that 8mb is fine as a upper limit, but a preference for less as a lower limit

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Lauda on March 11, 2017, 03:50:12 PM

You shouldn't be optimistic nor relying on speculative predictions of the future when it comes to Bitcoin's security.

then stop throwing speculations of things like 20mb blocks... or ur gangs other fake doomsdays of "gigabytes by midnight" "visa by tomorrow"

You are engaging in a discussion between another user and myself; we are free to discuss whatever we want and however we want. If you can't comprehend our discussion properly, then don't comment on it.

Quote from: Lauda on March 11, 2017, 03:50:12 PM

8mb upper limit and 2mb lower (dynamic) limit.

Where is the academic research backing up that 8 MB is safe as upper limit? For which time frame? How does the 2 MB grow to 8 MB? At what periods?

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4270

Merit: 4534

You shouldn't be optimistic nor relying on speculative predictions of the future when it comes to Bitcoin's security.

then stop throwing speculations of things like 20mb blocks... or ur gangs other fake doomsdays of "gigabytes by midnight" "visa by tomorrow"

as thats speculative predictions of the future.

stick to rational REAL abilities now

8mb upper limit and 2mb lower (dynamic) limit.

that gives a while to reassess the 8mb over time.
rather that waiting and halting growth for years due to fears of 20mb blocks.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

@Lauda: Maybe I'm overly optimistic about technology development in the coming 10 years. (A less than 160 million possible user base for 2027 would mean a pretty low "cap" for Bitcoin's price imho, as I don't believe in the "digital gold" thing and even using LN you need some on-chain transactions. A not small part of the population of this forum thinks that Bitcoin will replace the whole fiat money next year or so Wink

).

You shouldn't be optimistic nor relying on speculative predictions of the future when it comes to Bitcoin's security. You need to be conservative to say the least. If you don't believe that Bitcoin is digital gold, or you don't understand where the current value stems from, then you have to re-examine everything.

In the case of IBD I think that in that in that "drastic future" most users will end downloading blockchain snapshots. That has some centralization risks but I think they are manageable. Also reindexing maybe won't be a thing low-end-equipment users would do regularly - they would simply redownload a snapshot.

You shouldn't throw in centralizing aspects like they are trivial changes. The impact of something like that, and potential security concerns are probably not properly researched.

We're obviously talking about end users with consumer-level equipment. Professional users that use servers in well-connected datacenters should have no problems with 20 MB blocks, I think.

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.