Topic: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB) - page 4. (Read 14376 times)

Since Satoshi hadn't considered ASICS, but wrote about CPU, anyone wanting to be as true as possible to the original vision would likely want SegWit+LN for an equitable distribution of the work between all volunteers (perhaps 50,000 plus users from all of the users - i.e dedicated hashing devices rather than clients like phones), which would be bad news for heavily invested mega miners, but better for the network and distribution to be in almost all time zones (and possible BTC rewards to lots of different people rather than just a couple of outfits earning all the coin.  Hashing power will come down drastically initially but so what? - we're getting back to the 1%er syndrome and I'm sure the intention was to avoid exactly that).

Personally I'm prepared to wait a couple of weeks for recalibration of the difficulty if they all dropped out on the same day (highly unlikely since having consensus would likely make price go up and they still get their 12.5 lottery drops, and LN wouldn't be an immediate release anyhow), but it will once again allow average users to be participants in BTC to contribute out of their own electricity bill a little hashing power (maybe just a USB miner).

The rational holder of BTC who wants to see it going up and add more stability for the cost of a USB stick plus electricity, minus a few dollars a year in fee earnings and feel it's for a good cause, I'm sure there would be many that would volunteers.  I would for one.

I disagree, if there's a bug in the protocol, why bail-out the ignorant people who didn't discover the bug before they bought the coin


Your principle is flawed, and even if it isn't, what are you going to do about it? There's no way to force your idea on anyone, and so we'll just have to wait and see whether or not reality can demonstrate that you're either right or wrong....


......and oh look, the Bitcoin design and protocol have both been upgraded many, many times, and we're reaping the benefits of that right now.

Meanwhile, back in your own personal TheoreticalLand, you've got more tedious waffle for us, do go ahead

Not a bug.  A bug is a thing about software.  I'm talking about a protocol error.  A mathematics or cryptography error, an error in the economical dynamics.  Software can change, software only IMPLEMENTS (correctly or not) the protocol.  But the protocol IS the coin. 

For instance, it is part of the protocol of bitcoin that just ANY UTXO from any block can ALWAYS be used as an input to a transaction, using your private key in a way that was written down long ago.  If you leave your private key to your kids, and they leave it to their grand children, .... and 500 years from now, that private key should still be usable if that coin still exists.  If that's not the case, then that's not bitcoin. 

Now, if the cryptography breaks down and that private key can be deduced by cracking 2 hash functions and elliptic key signatures, then bitcoin is simply done.  There's no point in trying to fix that, if by fixing that, you break the original protocol.

Now, imagine that there was software that had bugs in the crypto software and accepted erroneous signatures.  That is simply a bug.  It means that maybe 1000 blocks have been generated that were INVALID according to the protocol, even though the buggy software accepted it.

The right thing to do is to orphan these 1000 blocks, because they are simply not valid according to the protocol, and were ERRONEOUSLY considered valid blocks by faulty software, and to start mining again from the point where the last valid block (according to the written protocol) was made.

If not, then whatever thing is being used, is not bitcoin.  Because bitcoin was an immutable protocol. (not unmodifiable software, that *implements* a protocol).  A protocol is a white paper with all details of it.  Not a piece of software.

So every time a bug arises, hard-fork it, right? It's a good thing you're not project managing any cryptocoins, no-one would ever buy in to begin with faced with that prospect

I read your post.  The point is, that there is no reason to "repair" a coin.  A coin is meant to be what it is, according to its protocol (not its *software*).  If that protocol fails in one fundamental way or another, one should move to another coin (that is, another protocol).

That was an example to contrast with the "Segwit address format = stealing Satoshi's BTC" argument


Please read the whole post in context before replying, you're wasting alot of space with your ill-conceived replies

Thinking about this myself, wouldn't it just make a lot of the core code 2 tier network backwards compatibility solution redundant technical debt?

You still have some time    Bitcoin will fail in much more mundane ways long, long long before that will happen. 

It is much simpler to use other crypto whenever that comes, than to try to repair a broken car.  But for the moment (and many many years to come), it isn't broken.  Forget the idea that a crypto currency is "for ever".  It has a life cycle, like any product.  And really, bitcoin will reach the end of its life cycle long, long before that cryptographic system breaks down.   There's nothing wrong with systems reaching the end of their life cycle.  You simply switch to better systems in that case.
It means you stop buying bitcoin and selling bitcoin, and you start buying Xcoin and selling Xcoin.  Nothing dramatical.  But don't dream that bitcoin is forever.  Nothing is.  Especially nothing that is in this technology.  Even today, bitcoin tech is oldfashioned and clunky, where it was brilliant and shiny when it came out.  It will still last a while.  But not as long as elliptic curve crypto.

Wonder whether people consider this to be a good compromise solution:

https://bitcoinec.info/

That's an argument for sitting back and watching Bitcoin fail when the ECDSA signature scheme (which Bitcoin uses) is threatened by future cryptographic advances.

The keys and signatures are the weakest crypto in the Bitcoin system, all the honest experts agree that external attacks using new crypto will force us move to new keypairs eventually. In that situation, Satoshi will have to move his coins just like anyone else, or the new crypto methods that break the current key scheme can and will steal their BTC held at addreses using the old keypairs whatever they do or do not want.


And besides which, you're confused. Segwit is a soft fork, that respects the ability of users who want to carry on using P2PKH and P2SH keys. No-one is being forced to do anything, although it's going to be cheaper once the non-nested P2W key scheme is instituted (sipa made a new proposal for those new key types fairly recently)

Most users will probably be happy with any proposal that increases the block size, the BIP100 revision also seems sensible.

The BU group are anti-segwit/ln (for obvious reasons) but may also be against their own proposal, IE it's just a blocking and/or leverage position.

The core group are very unlikely to roll back back their position either as too much time and money has been 'invested' in their solution.

Supporters of both groups are quick to blame the other for the downturn in the current BTC price, but they are both to blame IMHO, the fact that no solution is currently likely is just a plausible a reason, but unless you talk to all the people selling there is no way to know for sure.

Status Quo, seems the likely winner, and Bitcoin will continue to suffer as a result, maybe it will take that suffering for a consensus to emerge.

Actually segwit will eventually force everyone including Satoshi to move their coins into segwit keys to move the entire system up to a new level of security and flexibility, think about it if segwit is a bad thing and can destroy bitcoin why would they want to turn their own gold into iron or just dust?
that doesn't make any sense even if they manage to take control over the network which they already have(%85 of miners are running Core nodes) it is something that we need to check and study for ourselves, why did you enter bitcoin? did you go and read the code line by line?

For anyone who may have missed it, BitPay are also weighing up the pros and cons of an adaptive blocksize.  There is increasing momentum behind this idea, so let's do something positive with it.  It will likely need more safeguards and improvements before we can move forward with the idea.  Everyone needs to think long and hard about potential attack vectors and ways to game the system and, if possible, provide some solutions to those issues.  I'm confident that if we can bolster a few weaknesses and minimise the incentives to carry out spam attacks to artificially inflate the blocksize, we can come up with a good overall compromise.

Both parties have their own side which they want to protect and defend. They are all biased and have their own personal intentions to satisfy. They would not give up their pride and tried to make a merger to settle the issues. That is why the exchanges have made a move to just make the production of Bitcoin Unlimited as an altcoin and it was named BTU. Maybe segwit won this round and there will be no more compromises to be made.

https://medium.com/@aantonop/i-just-spent-the-last-8-months-working-on-the-second-edition-of-mastering-bitcoin-and-i-couldnt-c63bfdae248d#.wxal6cyyp

I very much agree with this, but now it can not happen, segwit has not been accepted by everyone, and now it's split into two branches, I do not know if this is good or bad, But it is affecting the bitcoin market, bitcoin is outdated by others, its value is falling sharply. Meanwhile, a lot of alt is growing vigorously. ETH is a typical example, it has taken breakthrough development, which is essential for bitcoin. I am looking forward to this change will bring many benefits to bitcoin. Bitcoin is not allowed to crash

When the largest ASIC manufacturer is making threats like this -

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/843341104531427336


This is symptomatic of a far greater problem in bitcoin and possibly Jihan is under duress to force a hard fork through. There is no negotiation with hostile cartels trying to attack users without consensus, instead we must further test and develop backup plans for worst case scenarios--

Website: btcpowupdate.org
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-bitcoin-pow-upgrade-initiative-1833391

Of course I would agree with such a proposition. Any sane person would do the same as a split could be the worst thing that could happen to us, and this, people do not understand it.

Certainly plausible, but it seems doubtful to me. What evidence leads you to conclude this?


Agreed. Good thing the most-widely-distributed 'plan' for BU cutover is 75%. That would be amongst all compatible clients. Including BU, simple 8MB, the upcoming BitcoinEC, and others. Today's support is at 43.8% + 6.9% - looks like we are well on the way to an end to this war. Some will lick their wounds, but I like to think that the victors will be welcoming of all.

I'm absolutely not convinced that miners showing support for BU actually want BU.  I think they simply don't want segwit, and they need something to block segwit.  BU or any other thing will do.   This is why they weren't affected by the bug in BU.  Because they don't care, it is not what they really want.  Miners want status quo because that's most profitable for them.  So the good old bitcoin protocol with 1MB will be with us forever.

Also, forking at 51% would be extremely risky, because once the two bitcoins are in the market, you give the choice to the market.  You might very well get seriously punished.  Why on earth would a miner want a bigger block and relieve pressure on the fee market ?  What miner is going to do a silly thing like that, and even risk bitcoin over that ?  

No, nothing of all this is going to happen: the bitcoin you know now, is the same bitcoin that will be running 10 years from now in my opinion.  Apart from the fact that there will maybe only be 1 mining pool  That mining pool can also serve as the big, single Lightning network hub if it wants to.  The LN fees will be identical to the block fees then.