Topic: The Lightning Network Reality Check - page 2. (Read 3469 times)

no...

segwit1mb would be accepted by nodes that are standard pure 2mb limit

remember anything from 0byte to 2mb is accepted.. its not a 2mb or reject.. its 0byte to 2000byte  ..


for instance there are miners today that refuse to fill up the blocks to the top. some have extra preferential settings to form blocks of whatever size they please, as long as the maximum is less than MAX_BLOCK_SIZE
for instance Antpool loves to make 0.2mb or 0.7mb blocks by preference:

0.0002mb(0.2kb)
0.0002mb(0.2kb)
0.731mb(731kb)
0.0002mb(0.2kb)
0.731mb(731kb)

yet these small blocks are accepted.. yes mindblowing(sarc) but true

segwit miners can do the same. only create blocks of 1mb(effective feeling of 2mb) of data based on a preference setting.
just like many miners try to stay at 0.2-0.7 right now, even if there is the capacity for more because of the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;, the preferential setting takes care of smaller block creation

they just choose to have another setting that is whatever they want, but lower than MAX_BLOCK_SIZE

segwit miners can do the same.. have the preferential setting at 1000000 while having the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 2000000; and they only make blocks based on preferential setting while simultaneously accepting blocks from there peers based on MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 2000000;

win win

as any data whether its 1mb, 0.5mb 1.5mb or 1.99mb would all get accepted by MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 2000000;

My initial post referencing dogecoin was had an incorrect example and was confusing so I deleted it and replaced it with one that was clearer (within a minute). What you appear to be saying is that if I email someone a bitcoin transaction, for example "I'm paying you 1 bitcoin", that is the same as an actual bitcoin transaction. Even though there is nothing that happens on the blockchain.

If that is the case, then a transaction in dogecoin is also a bitcoin transaction if the two parties agree that the dogecoin transaction represents (is a proxy for) bitcoin.

With the LN, your transactions are not bitcoins, they are a proxy for bitcoins. Once off-chain, the transactions are supposedly pegged to the value of bitcoins but there is no 100% enforced and direct connection. The fact that both parties locked something in the bitcoin network is immaterial. The subsequent transactions are off-chain, no different from alt-coin transactions between parties.

You sure?

https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/2016-01-20/?msg=58304091&page=2

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/97e5b55c6fabf5deb57be13bdd8f8b9c90d21570

I guess we slid off-topic again. Sorry.

Here's a good read:

I'm sure they are.  Obviously "eventually" doesn't seem to be a palatable time frame
for many, which is why there is contention.

It will be included (or it might be merged already, I'm not sure). In addition to this there is a BIP (143) that solves the validation time being quadratic, so that the time becomes O(n).

It is highly likely that it will eventually be raised (probably after IBLT and similar improvements).

Maybe they are planning to raise it eventually?

Why would core include it if they're not going to raise the limit anyway? Makes sense.

My understanding is that there is going to be a limit on the number of sigops a scipt can require that will fix this problem, but I don't know when it's coming.  It's not in 0.12.

I'm not wrong though, constructing such a transaction is possible. It is either 2 MB or SegWit right now, because both would result in an 'effective block size' of 4 MB which is definitely not safe (in addition to lack of consensus in regards to it).

I should add that larger block capacity via SegWit does not make the script problem any worse, because the max 'witness-less' blocksize would still be 1MB, so the largest possible script would still be 1MB.

I'm not sure that is a sufficient reason to have/keep a blocksize limit at the protocol level.  Why can't problematic transactions should be rejected by nodes, for example, by a simple timeout mechanism?

It isn’t just Adam. There are a few Core developers (including Jeff and Gavin) behind a hard fork to 2MB. BitFury, the biggest western mining pool is behind it; quite a few economic players with a lot at stake are equally convinced Lauda is wrong.

The problem is that every node on the network - not even just miners - will be validating that transaction, regardless of whether it ever actually ends up being in a mined block.  It is a valid transaction, which will be broadcast to all nodes.  And an attacker could broadcast many such transactions.

Thanks for the info.  I did not know about this.

Skimming over the comments... I wonder what's your rebuttal to this:

The validation time is quadratic. You can find information about this yourself easily or you can watch the first scaling workshop. The first thing that comes into mind is this post on reddit. The piece of information is also mentioned on Bitcoin.org, under

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yulwv/any_examples_of_the_10_minute_script_thats_a/

Can you link to some paper or something?

I've never heard this claim before and would like more information on what
you're talking about.

If Adam Back thinks 2MB are safe, then I agree with the good Mayor and would
say that it is in fact controversial at least.

One likely scenario is that the requirements on the nodes will increase due to the natural emergence of Bitcoin on the market. If this happens more people will depend on Bitcoin and be devoted to Bitcoin. Even with both the introduction of light clients and the price kicking our teeth in for the last three years, we still have 5648 nodes running. I think people confuse "real decentralization" with running a full node being some kind of a human right. It's not.