Topic: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB) - page 3. (Read 14409 times)

Likely moot, David.


The possibility of BU forking is increasingly unlikely. There is no community support really, despite loud voices screaming there is.

And one of the loudest voices on Bitcointalk (no, not me) has already begun to promote the next contentious hard fork attempt. It's very likely over, for now.



No, dino. It wouldn't matter if some successful hard fork coup wanted to use the Bitcoin name to "win", they can't win if their software design or code isn't up to standard. The name doesn't matter, the code does

The point is that no split off is interested in not being bitcoin, because the brand name is what counts.  So we'll stick with JUST 1).

Which is the more desirable outcome; one currency or two?  If two then finish the war and split off already -- I know, I know, who gets to claim the legacy.  If one then a compromise (no matter how dangerous, etc.) will have to be entered; hurry.  Given human nature (righteousness) I have lost confidence in this approach.

To me it seems like maybe three currencies could be the way forward;

1) bitcoin as it is running right now; it gets the legacy but with no development team to love it
2) SegWit, a new wonderful currency with loads of followers and a strong development team
3) the bigger/dynamic/adaptive block guys, a new wonder currency with loads of followers and a spirited development team

There really is only one legacy, right?  We can't have two currencies both considered to be the proper descendent of the original Bitcoin, right?

But fastest to achieve and easy to code/implement.

No, can`t agree.

These is no way to make it NOW. It should be done YEAR ago.

It is impossible to make it. It is easy to calculate. On-chain scaling is a myth.

As for NOW upgrade to 2MB block will unload mempool in about week, bot we don`t know how long it last. This why I see adaptive block size as best option. Do once and forget. Like diff is working now.

I have a friendly reminder for you.


Are bigger blocks the only way to increase on-chain capacity? No

Are bigger blocks the most dangerous way to increase on-chain capacity? Yes


Would improving the efficiency of how we use the blocksize that already exists be safe, add more capacity and actually improve Bitcoin's scaling? Yes


@rav3n: Why don't want you want safe capacity increases? Why don't you want true on-chain scaling?

3.7 MB for full nodes. This is why Segwit may also be *too much* in the worst case scenarios. Your understanding is very flawed, therefore saying 'exactly' has zero meaning. I'll address your previous post & others soon.

Exactly.
https://testnet.smartbit.com.au/block/00000000000016a805a7c5d27c3cc0ecb6d51372e15919dfb49d24bd56ae0a8b
Is this block 40kB or 3,7MB? It take 40kB of storage/transmission or 3,7MB storage/transmission?

and once segwit activates with the hope of getting all them 46m UTXO over to segwit keys to get to the possible tx count(without spam attacking to reduce) of ~4500tx/block... then what

you cant resegwit a segwit to double up again..

oh and the 1mb limit was about limiting bloat

but think rationally

segwits 2.1mb of full data is still 2.1mb of data...
its not 1mb data. its 2.1mb data.

(eg if the 'internet cant cope with 2mb' then the internet cant cope with 2mb)

pretending segwit helps FULL nodes by keeping a 1mb block limit. is not the truth a FULL node is handling 2.1mb
the 1mb is for old now lite clients that might aswell just be SPV clients. segwit isnt helping FULL nodes

Friendly reminder: Satoshi introduced 1MB limit ONLY as PROTECTION form spam attack on network. It was like 10-100x higher than block sizes.
From year+ now this limit is NOT working as protection at all. There is just "too many" transactions to fit in 1MB.
Block transmission is now done by header/gentx/tx list, not as full block data.
Block pruning allow run full node on about 20GB HDD space.
1MBit connection allow to transfer over 100tx/s (1:4 in/out), block can be like 15MB on that connection.
There is NO technological problem to make bigger blocks.
When SegWit start it probably will take another year to popularize SW transactions, LN and/or sidechains.
Think, how it is possible that "better" idea as SegWit have LESS support in miners than "worse" BU? Why over 30% is not decided?
IF Core merge ANY code that raise block limit along witch SegWit, it will get 95% in no time. If not - I (and not only I) see no chance to activate SegWit.
We just run out of time...

Lauda, I'm breathing a sigh of relief over here. You've always been reasonable IMO, and I'm glad you're seeing sense in what I'm saying.


The truth is: who knows what might happen? It's not at all impossible that geopolitical tensions, and the myriad of threats they pose to the smooth running of and accessibility to the internet, could calm right down tomorrow to negligible levels. But if we really want to keep this network alive, we should be as careful as possible, and that means planning for all plausible possibilities.

Bitcoin might be a big part of what solves geopolitical tensions. It can't do that on it's own, more innovations will be needed. But a free & sound money system for all would be the bedrock or the foundation to keeping the world turning in a co-operative and healthy way, the only way to defeat the trends that take us in the opposite direction.

The Enlightened King.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(Plato)

This doesn't make sense; Bitcoin is not a democracy and random individuals with no demonstrably relevant knowledge should not be deciding on technological solutions/limitations. How are certain groups unable of understanding something this simple?

There isn't a very good proposal for an adaptive block size at the moment (IMO).

Whilst I do not like doomsday scenarios, your argument is not without merit. As can be observed, NATO moving forces to Estonia & surrounding area to "combat Russian aggression", China warning US to respect airspace, etc. Things may not be as good tomorrow as they are today.

I don't think Core will do that.


rav3n, why do you refuse to understand that blocksize is a very dangerous value to change? The world is becoming a more dangerous place every day, we can't rely on the internet growing the same way it did 1990-2015. It might very plausibly become much slower and more restricted, that is a very serious risk, and not just to Bitcoin.

We can achieve on-chain scaling by making the transactions smaller, or other more intelligent ways. Blocksize changes are stupid when those things do more with less blockspace.

There is a pool on biggest Polish bitcoin forum:
https://forum.bitcoin.pl/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20768

Q: "What road of Bitcoin development you support?"
User can pick up to two options from:
- SegWit
- Bitcoin Unlimited
- one time to 2MB
- one time to 4MB or more
- adaptive block size
- reduce to 0.5MB
- leave 1MB





I think, there is clear how it looks there.
Team Core should merge block size raise along witch SegWit. Time is NOW.

Yes, you're right.  I meant to say that if you fundamentally change the protocol, you have a different coin.  But of course, if you start a new chain, you ALSO have a new coin, as you correctly point out.


My idea is: where does immutability even come from ?  Why should people join a system of which the rules can arbitrarily change ?  Would you buy a coin of which chances are that tomorrow, "a majority" votes that you don't own that coin any more ?  Would you trade value for transactions that can be undone the very next day "by majority" ?

Even though in principle, any consensus mechanism can change just anything, any time, you would EXPECT that the basic rules you subscribed to when entering the system, are "enforced" by some mechanism, no ?

But as that "mechanism" has no centralized leadership, and is to be trustless, it cannot have any "moral decision power".  It cannot distinguish which changes are in fact "good", and which changes are "bad".   So there *must be a mechanism that enforces stability of the rules*.  That mechanism is what guarantees immutability.  If you don't think that such a mechanism is at work, you must presume that there are only 2 possibilities:

1) there is a central form of authority, that will distinguish good from bad ; for instance, a genuine majority vote inspired by charismatic leadership IN WHICH YOU HAVE TO HAVE TRUST

2) anything can happen any moment, and your holdings, transactions, whatever, can and will change in an ARBITRARY way any moment.

In 1) you don't have a decentralized, trustless system.  You have something very similar to normal banking.
In 2), you have a totally arbitrary system that is unstable.  Impossible to generate any reasonable monetary belief.

My idea is that 1) is possible, but that there IS a mechanism at work: decentralized antagonism.  No antagonist is strong enough, and can find enough collusion, to get HIS changes imposed by majority.  No majority can be reached over anything else but status quo on IMPORTANT (economical) aspects of the system, simply because there are different ways to change the system and too many different antagonists which are not colluding and have no common leadership (= my definition of "decentralized").

As such, only status quo can have a majority "vote" by so many non-colluding antagonists.  This is the cause of immutability, and the fundamental property that can make decentralized trustless systems develop monetary belief.

If there is a majority that imposes change, it means that the system was centralized under leadership.

However, you are right that hard forks (new coin creation) can be performed by just any antagonist.  In that case, people vote in the market: but this is not "leadership".  Any antagonist, no matter how small, can do this, and the success of his modification emerges in the market, leaderless.  The old system, however, remains immutable.  (but can die)

Well, no. In addition to the protocol, the coin is also the ledger.

I don't believe you are right on your immutability claim. Plate tectonics may be analogous. Two forces are working in opposition. As the stresses get higher and higher, eventually something snaps, and a new equilibrium is formed.

Hey - it's an analogy, not a model.

As I said, soft forks are not protocol changes, but protocol restrictions.  
There is BIP 66, BIP 65, BIP 34, BIP 30 and BIP 16

BIP 34 was about the version number of blocks and from 2012 (still the cheap years of bitcoin)

BIP 65 introduced a new instruction in the bitcoin instruction OPcodes

BIP 66 solved an ambiguity concerning OPENSSL

All these things are just technical aspects, soft forks, and do not affect in the slightest bit the usual way of how people use bitcoin economically.  I even don't think that these aspects are much used.  All of them have only been activated with 95% consensus which was easily established.  You can hardly say that they modify the original protocol in its way of working.

These are technical improvements that don't affect what people actually do with bitcoin, they don't affect the economics of fees, rewards, and so on.

In other words, they were not "significant changes".  Most people would never notice.

I think you're being very naive about LN, much more so that Satoshi's naivity about proof of work.  The LN only makes sense when there are VERY BIG hubs to which normal users connect.  The reason is that in order to be able to pay a random person over the LN you need to find a series of nodes that can propagate your payment to destiny before settling on that path.  Settling costs a fee.  In order for the LN to be competitive with direct on chain transactions, a LN channel needs on average to transact AT LEAST a number of transactions, equal to the number of hops between sender and receiver.  In other words, if on average, a transaction takes 20 hops between a sender and a receiver, that means that on average, each LN channel must transact 20 transactions before settling, or direct on chain transactions would be cheaper.

This means that you have to "lock in" on average 20 times the amount of a single transaction in each of your LN channels to your neighbours EVEN TO BREAK EVEN, if you charge the same fee to your customers, than an on chain fee.
The more you can keep your LN channels open before settling, the better your margin becomes (between the fees you can charge for a LN transaction, and the block chain fee).  But you are not alone in settling: your counterparty can settle too !

The economies of scale in this system are evident: the most profitable LN nodes, that can offer the most competitive LN fees, and can guarantee the best probability to reach destination, are BIG HUBS that connect amongst them, with very large amounts locked up in their channels.  Small players are CUSTOMERS, that have to open a channel to their BANK/hub and keep it open to process at least say, 20 transactions before closing and having to pay an on-chain fee.

The economies of scale in the LN are even much more pronounced than the economies of scale in proof of work.  So the centralization will go even faster.  Bitcoin is now in the hands of 5 people (the 5 mining pools that make up more than 51%), and for sure in the hands of 14 people (controlling more than 90% of the hash rate).

Bitcoin is hence a large majority 14 people oligarchy.  But it took several years for this centralisation to take place.   The LN will do this much faster.  Probably 10-15 "banks" of hubs will form rather quickly if the LN is to function.

Significant changes to the Bitcoin protocol were soft-forked into the coin only last year, and in 2015, and in 2014


That completely contradicts your argument, 100%. Spare us your bloviated replies, you're talking nonsense.

I'm not proposing to bail out anyone   I'm just saying that whining about a crypto because it doesn't have the right features and "should evolve" is not the right attitude: changing to a better crypto is.  The only thing where this hurts, is in the monetary belief in eternity, but things are never eternal. 


I think my principle is right.  Not "morally right" but "factually right".   And yes, I don't think that bitcoin will change unless it is totally centralized and that central authority (a cartel of 5 miners for instance) decides upon whatever should happen to bitcoin.

My conviction is that as long as bitcoin is decentralized, the protocol is protected by the dynamics of immutability.  And all the animosity we see is nothing else but that dynamics at work: the fact of sufficiently diverse antagonists (decentralisation) not being able to agree over anything but status quo, because all change can be done in 10 different ways, and each antagonist has HIS way.  So I think that we are now stuck with the bitcoin protocol as it is, and 1 MB blocks.  For ever.  Unless a cartel of 5 miners (and maybe a Chinese government official) in a room somewhere decide otherwise.


Apart from the very early years, I would doubt that.  I don't think that there has ever been a hard fork in bitcoin.  Soft forks are protocol restrictions, so in as much as 51% of PoW decides, imposing soft forks is not really a protocol modification ; going back however, is.  Can you give many examples of protocol upgrades ?  The block format is the same, the block header is the same, the signature scheme is the same, the bitcoin instruction set is the same as far as I know, .... I really wonder what has changed in the bitcoin protocol, that is, in the way to write valid block chains ?  (apart the very first beginnings when bitcoin was worth zilch and no mechanisms were locked in by profit and antagonism yet)

(the network protocol is much less important as it is volatile: what remains is the block chain).

You know of many hard forks of bitcoin in the past ?


It is my way to build my own understanding.