bitcoin the currency and bitcoin the Network, are one and the same and can't be separated, at least i dont see how that can be done.
Not entirely of course, but the relationship can be weakenedAn incomplete thought:
Why not add emergent consensus on blocksize through soft forked extension blocks and 1MB+segwit on the main blocks?
oh i see what your saying....Why not add emergent consensus on blocksize through soft forked extension blocks and 1MB+segwit on the main blocks?
well... that sounds like sapeggit.
i want to say, SF are evil.
Yeah the beauty is that you only have to softfork once if you prefer hardforks and than can hardfork the extension blocks chain all you want without having the danger to double the BTC amount.
While segwit may be a compromise beetween small blockers and normal blockers, it completely disregards big blockers and as we can see through segwit readyness signaling also provides little incentive (or even negative) to miners.
Another compromise could be main block 1 MB, extension block Core with segwit and max 2.7 MB blockweight and extensionblock with EC blocksize.
So when you'd run core, you'd have the same spam attack surface as with segwit now.
Of course this would mean more work for devs, which want EC, but the potential reward is higher.
The beauty for BU would be that afterwards you could hard-fork on that extension blocks all you want, without having the risk to split the base BTC currency.
I feel like core devs would love(not hate?) this idea.So when you'd run core, you'd have the same spam attack surface as with segwit now.
Of course this would mean more work for devs, which want EC, but the potential reward is higher.
The beauty for BU would be that afterwards you could hard-fork on that extension blocks all you want, without having the risk to split the base BTC currency.
But idk a SF which requires miner consensus , and requires nodes to update to make sense of the new "extension block" seems kinda pointless, HF seems cleaner, and the coins in the extension block probably won't be fungible with real BTC ?? idk.
Edit: even with all that said... i think you might be onto somthing, but idk!
Devs are pretty smart - it would be no problem to implement this, the question is do they want to and if this is an acceptable compromise.
Unless devs for one extension block don't fuck everything up, they should always be fungible with real BTC through the main block.
The overall fungibility might even improve because downgrading the bitcoins back into main blocks could (would likely?) be implemented with free mixing.
In essence you could upgrade your bitcoins from the main block utxo to an extension block utxo.
Downgrading of course is also possible, although technically slightly more difficult.
Of course to send btc from a therotical EC extension block to a theoretical segwit extension block this could take some time, but this should be alot faster than if we split into two chains and you would'nt even be able to do this, no, you'd have to go through an exchange.
And than you'd of course have services like we have today with shapeshift, which would reduce the number of needed downgrade/upgrade to other extension block chain alot.
As a normal user your wallet could do that for you automatically.
The complexity could be wrapped through different adresses for the different extension blocks.
Its a bit like Lightning BTCs. When you have locked up your BTC in a channel you cannot use them otherwise. But the other party may not accept Lightning so you may find yourself in a dilemma.
So we would be better here from a user experience too compared to a split - and most settled transactions would be intra extension block.
You could design the basic idea of extension blocks in a numerous ways.
The most advanced document I found so far is this, though the document may slightly differ from my idea
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-January/013490.html
It is not ideal, but it I like it far better than status quo, contentious HF or UASF, which are the most popular ideas atm.
Thinking further ahead, I don't think we will end up with endless different extension blocks.
Each extension block has to provide clear advantages over what we already have.
Segwit and EC blocksize should both have enough interested people.
For the digital gold people, who only want to HODL this would be completely opt-in.
You could still use plain bitcoin 0.12 and receive bitcoins, completely ignoring the extension blocks.
Nobody would force you to use segwit or submit to EC.
It is not a perfect solution, but the best I currently can see. I think it is feasable, morally acceptable, makes HFs easier within the extsion blocks, preserves node decentrailization, allows miners to let onchain compete with offchain and most importantly does not split the currency bitcoin.
It does not need the permission from every development team. BU could go ahead, team up with Classic and do this without Core, if they would get support from the miners.
On the negative side i would create a little technical debt in the beginning, because you'd have to support extension blocks.
But later you would be saved from additional technical debt and could even pay off some.
E.g. if EC extension blockers deem segwit technical debt they do not need to support segwit.
Of course - an uncontentious HF would be cleaner, but due to politics from all sides will not happen in the next years.
For me this is so much more appealing than a chain split.
P.S. my personal favorite is SBTC with RSK ;oD
RSK probably requires low BTC TX fees to work?
its very interesting.
I got into OMNI a while back, as a way to double down on bitcoin's success.
The higher the fees on the main chain - the more incentive for users to go to the sidechain, where we can easily have 100 tps onchain.
RSK will have a two way peg -> 1 Smart Bitcoin (SBTC) equals 1 Bitcoin
But atleast initially RSK has a very different (trust-) model than plain BTC and will need completly new software.
