Bitcoin Forum

SegWit2MB Proposal Combines Segwit Activation With Predetermined Block Size Increase Date


Even though it sometimes appears as if we are getting closer to a bitcoin scaling solution, that is far from the case. Yet another proposal is making the rounds under the name of Segwit2MB. While many people assumed this was an April’s Fools joke at first, it appears this proposal is seemingly legitimate. If that is the case, it is a rather useless proposition, though.

To put this new proposal into perspective, Segwit2MB does not necessarily seem to serve a specific purpose. Its creators want to merge this concept into bitcoin through a combination of a soft and hard fork. It will use Segwit as it is today with a 2MB block size increase in the form of a hard fork, which is set to occur at a predetermined date.

Combining a soft fork and a hard fork to appease to all bitcoin communities makes little to no sense, though. Once SegWit activates, there will be a future block size increase already. Introducing an additional hard fork to achieve this goal is counterproductive at best, which is why this proposal is met with a lot of skepticism. Even the developers admit Segwit2MB is not the best possible technical solution, which is rather intriguing.

While it is true more proposals to see SegWit getting activated is quite interesting. Then again, the UASF seems to serve that purpose just fine, assuming it will ever happen. Organizing a user-activated soft fork takes time and careful planning, though, and it poses its own set of risks and problems. There is no “clean” solution to solving this problem, although that is not exactly news either.

Full Read Here: https://www.fxinter.net/en/free-realtime-forex-news.aspx?ID=191905&direct=SegWit2MB+Proposal+Combines+Segwit+Activation+With+Predetermined+Block+Size+Increase+Date (https://www.fxinter.net/en/free-realtime-forex-news.aspx?ID=191905&direct=SegWit2MB+Proposal+Combines+Segwit+Activation+With+Predetermined+Block+Size+Increase+Date)

The goal of the proposal is to end the civil war -- that's a worthwhile outcome

I don't think it goes far enough to provide meaningful scaling.  2mb at a later date?  8mb would be a lot more appealing.

Welcome to BU number 2.0 - this is yet-another-head-on-the-hydra that is BU and its other "kin" (Classic, XT etc..) that just won't fucking die.

You'll be hearing more about this "new idea" I'm sure, since the BU effort is crashing and burning.

so, anything except Core: Maxwell, Wuille, and company (pun intended) is not acceptable, right? 

Just want to make sure I understand your position.

Nothing except blocksize increases, eh, jonald?


No need to explain your position, you're like a CD skipping or a vinyl record stuck in a groove


You're one of those neeky characters man, going on and on about size, bigger, larger, longer, wider etc. Got something to prove, eh ;D


Why do you never listen to the arguments about increasing on-chain capacity in a smarter way, that actually scales up (which blocksize increases cannot achieve)?

Are you really so dense that you can't deduce what is going on? Is this endemic to all people who support BU-like efforts? Maybe this is why the BU "dev" team is such a hot mess....lol

I think it is better to be 8MB + SW.