In the end, we are dealing with a piece of code. There has been "flaws" in Bitcoin before and it was rectified. If ArtForz wanted to take all our coins in the early years, then he could have done that, but he told Satoshi about the flaw and he fixed it.
This is the thing about Bitcoin, if it fails, we all lose money. A consensus about the critical change that would be needed to "fix" it, will receive quick consensus once it was published, because it will be in our best interest. ^smile^
A lot of Peer review goes into this code, because it is OpenSource, so chances of "critical flaws" being identified is reduced.
Topic: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails - page 9. (Read 6407 times)
Trying to answer that at least partially, from a "advanced non-programmer's" point of view (techies may correct me):
In this case, I think there would be no problem to "go to Segwit", as Segwit is not tied to a certain block size. What must be done is a "BU-Segwit" transition version that enables the Segwit soft fork in the BU code and possibly goes back to a static block size, so at the end all more or less would be the same outcome than without the BU intermezzo.
In this case, it's similar but a little bit more complicated because Segwit changes the block structure. We then cannot go back to the BU we know now, but we could go on with a BU fork that includes Segwit. So the outcome could be a client with the BU blocksize consensus mechanism but Segwit cannot be "erased" that easy from the code.
1. BU gets the support and we all hard fork to BU, but then something happens. A technical issue that does not break Bitcoin but makes it hard to use (long confirmation time, high fees etc).
What could be done? Another fork? Can we still go to SegWit at this point? Something else?
What could be done? Another fork? Can we still go to SegWit at this point? Something else?
In this case, I think there would be no problem to "go to Segwit", as Segwit is not tied to a certain block size. What must be done is a "BU-Segwit" transition version that enables the Segwit soft fork in the BU code and possibly goes back to a static block size, so at the end all more or less would be the same outcome than without the BU intermezzo.
Quote
2. SegWit gets the support and we all soft fork to SegWit, but then something happens.[...] Can we still go to BU at this point? Something else?
In this case, it's similar but a little bit more complicated because Segwit changes the block structure. We then cannot go back to the BU we know now, but we could go on with a BU fork that includes Segwit. So the outcome could be a client with the BU blocksize consensus mechanism but Segwit cannot be "erased" that easy from the code.
BU breaking is guaranteed, 100%. It's design basically is an attack waiting to happen.
Segwit breaking isn't guaranteed, but not impossible.
Can you explain why BU breaking is guaranteed? and Segwit is not? Segwit breaking isn't guaranteed, but not impossible.
Segwit breaking isn't guaranteed, but not impossible.
Lauda's Face when she read your statement.
FYI: Lauda trying to think of a response to Segwit breaking.
I have no idea what you are talking about, but i wounder that besides franky nobody could answer this. Usually the users on this forum act like they now it all.
I used ZeroBlock app on my phone to kill time.
saw a content item (swipe left) link, about segwit issues blog post.
1) user asked for a link to explain "what's wrong with segwit" maybe on reddit
2) child post provided link to GoT character avatar ("a girl has no name" guy) posted blog entry listing issues in a rather factual method.
trying to find now, and not coming up in ZB. would post for refernece, but can't find. have you seen this blog?
saw a content item (swipe left) link, about segwit issues blog post.
1) user asked for a link to explain "what's wrong with segwit" maybe on reddit
2) child post provided link to GoT character avatar ("a girl has no name" guy) posted blog entry listing issues in a rather factual method.
trying to find now, and not coming up in ZB. would post for refernece, but can't find. have you seen this blog?
as unbiased as possible
with BU
users still use native keypairs. the thing is when a hard consensus activates a bilateral split does NOT occur... also pools WONT jump straight to filling a block right to the top of the limit. they will try a block at 1.001mb first and see what the orphan risk is. and progress from there. it may take hours or months depending on safety/demand for it to actually hit the new limit.
so lets say there was issue with blocks over 1mb.. pools simply mine 0.999mb blocks again.. end of drama
with segwit
SW positions pools and segwit nodes as upstream filters and users need to move their funds over to segwit keys to actually be disarmed from the mallicious things that segwit meant to fix.
so lets say there was an issue with segwit. all the pools and nodes need to down grade back to native nodes and find a way to move funds back to native keys.
with BU
users still use native keypairs. the thing is when a hard consensus activates a bilateral split does NOT occur... also pools WONT jump straight to filling a block right to the top of the limit. they will try a block at 1.001mb first and see what the orphan risk is. and progress from there. it may take hours or months depending on safety/demand for it to actually hit the new limit.
so lets say there was issue with blocks over 1mb.. pools simply mine 0.999mb blocks again.. end of drama
with segwit
SW positions pools and segwit nodes as upstream filters and users need to move their funds over to segwit keys to actually be disarmed from the mallicious things that segwit meant to fix.
so lets say there was an issue with segwit. all the pools and nodes need to down grade back to native nodes and find a way to move funds back to native keys.
BU breaking is guaranteed, 100%. It's design basically is an attack waiting to happen.
Segwit breaking isn't guaranteed, but not impossible.
Segwit breaking isn't guaranteed, but not impossible.
Let us try an new perspective to the whole block size debate.
Two scenarios i like to discuss.
1. BU gets the support and we all hard fork to BU, but then something happens. A technical issue that does not break Bitcoin but makes it hard to use (long confirmation time, high fees etc).
What could be done? Another fork? Can we still go to SegWit at this point? Something else?
2. SegWit gets the support and we all soft fork to SegWit, but then something happens. A technical issue that does not break Bitcoin but makes it hard to use (long confirmation time, high fees etc).
What could be done? A hard fork? Can we still go to BU at this point? Something else?
Two scenarios i like to discuss.
1. BU gets the support and we all hard fork to BU, but then something happens. A technical issue that does not break Bitcoin but makes it hard to use (long confirmation time, high fees etc).
What could be done? Another fork? Can we still go to SegWit at this point? Something else?
2. SegWit gets the support and we all soft fork to SegWit, but then something happens. A technical issue that does not break Bitcoin but makes it hard to use (long confirmation time, high fees etc).
What could be done? A hard fork? Can we still go to BU at this point? Something else?
Jump to: