Topic: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB) - page 19. (Read 14376 times)
March 07, 2017, 07:08:22 PM
I am not technically qualified to comment in detail. But I am very much for compromise and 2MB with Segwit is an excellent place to start. Let's see who is serious about moving btc ahead.
March 07, 2017, 06:51:51 PM
yes I like this idea. If this can be a configuration choice for node operator to vote, that would be even better.
Forget about BU and BC, we need Bitcoin United
Forget about BU and BC, we need Bitcoin United
March 07, 2017, 06:44:25 PM
BU's fundamental purpose is Semi-Unrestricted block building (accelerates network centralization).
CORE's fundamental purpose is Semi-Restricted block building (preserves network decentralization).
...CORE's fundamental purpose is Semi-Restricted block building (preserves network decentralization).
How decentralised is LN?
I am not qualified to answer.
In theory, if designed and implemented appropriately, equal to Bitcoin's.
It would seem the former of these two options was envisiged by the creator at the time. Nodes centralising around well connected mining nodes and bitcoin service providers, and users using SPV wallets.
Yes, but there is one problem that is a constant misunderstanding in the
whole Bitcoin community.
When this belief was stated by Satoshi, Nodes were a single entity.
The miners were validators and the validators were miners.
There was only one. Now, there are two separate systems.
Due to these two separate systems, there are two possible choices now.
Satoshi's original comments (as to Nodes) no longer apply to today's reality.
March 07, 2017, 06:29:13 PM
BU's fundamental purpose is Semi-Unrestricted block building (accelerates network centralization).
CORE's fundamental purpose is Semi-Restricted block building (preserves network decentralization).
CORE's fundamental purpose is Semi-Restricted block building (preserves network decentralization).
Bigger blocks tend toward network centralisation, but decentralises the user base (more people can afford to send bitcoin).
Small blocks allow greater network decentralisation, but centralises the user base (only a few big actors can afford to send bitcoin).
How decentralised is LN?
It would seem the former of these two options was envisiged by the creator at the time. Nodes centralising around well connected mining nodes and bitcoin service providers, and users using SPV wallets.
March 07, 2017, 06:15:44 PM
Is it not the case that segwit coded as a hard fork would mean that all UTXO's can be spent with segwit? No stupid network topology introduced like with the soft fork mechanism? If so, then yes I think it would be accepted, unless ...
Given that dev fraction ( blockstream core) solution SW looks rejected by miner fraction, compromise should be proposed from second fraction, not first one again.
And we might need a third, merchants?, to moderate in case.
And we might need a third, merchants?, to moderate in case.
The issue here is that if BU community and BU devs are not willing to cap the blocksize
or cap the blockweight, then there can never be compromise. They will fork eventually
since they are extremists. They are not looking out for the future, only themselves now,
in the most perfect form of greed. The greed that kills the golden goose, which is the most
stupid of all greeds.
- BU's fundamental purpose is Semi-Unrestricted block building (accelerates network centralization).
This is to bring about a more currency like device now, instead of later.
They do not mind network centralization or do deny/ignore its possibility of occurrence.
- CORE's fundamental purpose is Semi-Restricted block building (preserves network decentralization).
This is to maintain the unregulatibility and other like aspects now and later.
They do not mind slowed user growth or high fees or do deny/ignore their possible impacts.
They are fundamentally opposed. Like a couple that has different interests now and changed over time.
The normal situation would be that the couple would break up and each do their own thing.
If a compromise can be reached, it will be either full capitulation or a masterful answer still unknown.
March 07, 2017, 05:50:54 PM
Given that dev fraction ( blockstream core) solution SW looks rejected by miner fraction, compromise should be proposed from second fraction, not first one again.
And we might need a third, merchants?, to moderate in case.
And we might need a third, merchants?, to moderate in case.
March 07, 2017, 05:19:17 PM
Is it not the case that segwit coded as a hard fork would mean that all UTXO's can be spent with segwit? No stupid network topology introduced like with the soft fork mechanism? If so, then yes I think it would be accepted, unless someone things there are reasons why it would be a bad idea. Although my worry then would be that we would be fighting for the next capacity hard fork with no leverage.
March 07, 2017, 04:44:34 PM
Code them up together, but allow each component to be activated *separately* thus allowing clients to choose which component they wish to support... I suspect support for BIP102 will be a lot higher now (yes I know about quadratic scaling issue.)
March 07, 2017, 04:35:14 PM
Unfortunately, I think we are about to head into the next evolution of Bitcoin
blockchain theory, in which what will occur has not really happened before
and we will learn new lessons about how Bitcoin truly functions.
Some will lose greatly and others will win, but the current community and
economy will suffer as a whole. When certain actors are no longer properly
incentivized, they will split the single chain premise because you can. For
someone to take such a risk with confidence, it is either clairvoyance or
absolute madness.
This is mostly due to communication failures, misunderstandings, ideologies,
and egos. Compromises are likely over. Now is the quiet before the storm.
If something doesn't happen soon, all out war will begin.
But, maybe that is the only answer to this question, sadly.
Extremism is malicious, within a Consensus system.
blockchain theory, in which what will occur has not really happened before
and we will learn new lessons about how Bitcoin truly functions.
Some will lose greatly and others will win, but the current community and
economy will suffer as a whole. When certain actors are no longer properly
incentivized, they will split the single chain premise because you can. For
someone to take such a risk with confidence, it is either clairvoyance or
absolute madness.
This is mostly due to communication failures, misunderstandings, ideologies,
and egos. Compromises are likely over. Now is the quiet before the storm.
If something doesn't happen soon, all out war will begin.
But, maybe that is the only answer to this question, sadly.
Extremism is malicious, within a Consensus system.
March 07, 2017, 04:29:11 PM
We can say for sure that anything SegWit related is no longer gonna be accepted. Anti SegWit movement is too strong.
Naysayers will just conclude that this compromise is a simply backdoor for SegWit and 2MB blocks is just smoke and mirrors.
Naysayers will just conclude that this compromise is a simply backdoor for SegWit and 2MB blocks is just smoke and mirrors.
March 07, 2017, 04:28:58 PM
You have a good point, but I'm pretty sure that there will be no compromise.
The BU side thinks that the Segwit side are idiots, and the Segwit side knows that the BU side are idiots.
There is no compromise
The BU side thinks that the Segwit side are idiots, and the Segwit side knows that the BU side are idiots.
There is no compromise
March 07, 2017, 04:22:56 PM
@DooMAD: What you say surely is valid - it's a short-term fix, but it would fix the current bottlenecks and already would enable Lightning and other offchain methods to be tested and in 2-3 years we can then switch to a more flexible variant.
And I think it would be very difficult in the actual situation to reach an agreement that includes some kind of "vote" by the miners for a certain block size, although your proposal seems to be much more moderate than BU (I have read it only superficially, though).
And I think it would be very difficult in the actual situation to reach an agreement that includes some kind of "vote" by the miners for a certain block size, although your proposal seems to be much more moderate than BU (I have read it only superficially, though).
March 07, 2017, 04:17:16 PM
I'm all for compromise, but still feel that any static, fixed size is a clumsy and crude solution. As many have argued previously, it's merely kicking the can down the road. SegWit plus a modified hybrid of BIP100 and BIP106 would be more flexible, adaptable and future-proof. Not only that, but a sudden, arbitrary one-time surge in space leads to uncertainty and the possibility of abuse by spammers. The change is healthier being gradual and predictable.
March 07, 2017, 04:07:34 PM
Update: For those new to the topic: There is already a precise proposal with a patch ready to be tested that implements this compromise solution, called "Segwit2MB", by Core security auditor Sergio Demian Lerner.
I have read this compromise proposal from "ecafyelims" at Reddit and want to know if there is support for it here in this forum.
Compromise: Let's merge BIP 102 (2MB HF) and BIP 141 (Segwit SF)
It's very similar to what was already proposed last year at the Satoshi Roundtable. What is the opinion of the Bitcointalk community?
I have read this compromise proposal from "ecafyelims" at Reddit and want to know if there is support for it here in this forum.
Compromise: Let's merge BIP 102 (2MB HF) and BIP 141 (Segwit SF)
Quote from: Reddit user ecafyelims
Let's merge BIP 102 (2MB HF) and BIP 141 (Segwit SF) into a single HF (with overwhelming majority consensus).
Since Segwit changes how the blocksize is calculated to use weights, our goal with the merger would be 2MB of transactional data.
Segwit weighting system measures the transaction weight to be 3x(non-witness base data) + (base data with witness data). This weight is then limited to 4M, favoring witness data.
Transactions aren't all of base or witness. So, in practice, the blocksize limit is somewhere between 1MB (only base data) and 4MB (only witness data) with Segwit.
With this proposed merger, we will increase Segwit weight limit from 4M to 8M. This would allow 2MB of base data, which is the goal of the 2MB HF.
It's a win-win solution. We get 2MB increase and we get Segwit.
I know this compromise won't meet the ideals of everyone, but that's why it's a compromise. No one wins wholly, but we're better off than where we started.
Since Segwit changes how the blocksize is calculated to use weights, our goal with the merger would be 2MB of transactional data.
Segwit weighting system measures the transaction weight to be 3x(non-witness base data) + (base data with witness data). This weight is then limited to 4M, favoring witness data.
Transactions aren't all of base or witness. So, in practice, the blocksize limit is somewhere between 1MB (only base data) and 4MB (only witness data) with Segwit.
With this proposed merger, we will increase Segwit weight limit from 4M to 8M. This would allow 2MB of base data, which is the goal of the 2MB HF.
It's a win-win solution. We get 2MB increase and we get Segwit.
I know this compromise won't meet the ideals of everyone, but that's why it's a compromise. No one wins wholly, but we're better off than where we started.
It's very similar to what was already proposed last year at the Satoshi Roundtable. What is the opinion of the Bitcointalk community?
Jump to: