seriously?? your going to:
ignore actual blockcounts
ignore how the activation is measured.
and show a stupid average over a stupid 24 hours.
wow. the other day it hit 24%, then down to 14%, then upto 25% then down to 16% then upto 19%........ LOL
how about use actual count of 2016 blocks and get a number that actually applies to the rule.
hell lets even use segwit creators own stats page
note the red line as thats the only metric the CODE cares about.
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-10k.pngagain note the red line.
as for anything else lauda has said about segwit. im pretty sure lauda has yet to learn C++ to actually know code to actually independently review and understand it. and run it through some scenarios
i did give lauda a few hints months ago to learn it. lets hope lauda took up that chance.
now lets summarise.
malleability does nothing for LN.
say we call a malicious person X and a honest person Y
to open a channel funds need to be confirmed and locked. LN would only recognise a locked and confirmed tx. thus malleability is useless. because LN wont do anything to unconfirmed transactions and would only accept whatever is seen locked into the blockchain.
when using LN a transaction needs to be signed by BOTH X and Y to spend (broadcast back onchain)
if X then wants to malleate a tx to then void the first one hoping he can then sign a second tx to trick funds back to himself he cannot. because Y wont sign the malleated tx. and the second tx without both signatures will never get accepted into a block.
dual signing alone makes malleability useless tool to double spend
secondly. legacy(old) nodes wont benefit from it. also old nodes will have more issues to contend with. such as seeing 'funky' transactions. aswell as still not being able to trust unconfirmed transactions due to RBF and CPFP.
thirdly new nodes wont benefit from malleability. because malleabilities main headache was double spending.. and guess what.. RBF CPFP still make double spends a risk.
yes all them promises of fixing malleability to let people have a bit more trust in unconfirmed transactions falls flat because they basically took away malleability but then implemented RBF CPFP..
fourthly as for the linear/quadratics.. be serious for one moment. think of a rational reason why one person would need to do say 200-10,000 signature operations in one transaction.
just checking the blockchain history. how often has a legitimate transaction actually required lots of signatures to the extent of causing issues.
the funny thing is limiting transactions sigops actually ensures that we never get a situation where one person can fill a block alone..
but instead, not limiting transaction sigops and just making it fast to process. along with offering a discount on signatures, actually makes it easier, cheaper and more rewarding for someone to spam the block with a single transaction. yea it wont cause network delay. but still causes the community to get peed off that someone is filling the block with one transaction.
limiting sigops was/is the obvious route that should have been taken.
fifthly, the 4mb weight. is only going to be filled with 1.8mb tx +witness data. leaving 2.2mb unused. but guess what. people will use it by filling it with arbitrary data. such as writing messages, adverts, even writing a book into the blockchain. what should have been done was allow 2mb base thus needing ~3.6mb weight.. and also adding a rule that 'messages' could not be added. thus keeping the blockchain lean and utilised just for transactions and not novels/adverts/messages. afterall if a communication tool like twitter or SMS can limit how much someone writes.. then so should bitcoin.
we will definetly see people purposefully bloating up the blockchain with passages of mobydick or over nonsense. and core have done nothing to stop it but done everything to allow it.
sixthly, as i slightly hinted before. by not limiting sigops, not preventing arbitrary data being added core have incentivised bloating by discounting it. but have then added the fee's to reduce bitcoins utility of an actual transaction ledger..
this has to be emphasized over and over.. adding bloat is discounted(free) but sending a real transaction is costly
seventhly, now lets get to the feewar. by removing the instant reaction of allowing fee's to drop when there is low demand. to instead use an "average" metric, actually ends up keeping prices high even when empty blocks are showing. this also has a ripple effect on the relay network where nodes wont even relay certain transactions that dont meet a threshold. which during times of empty blocks/low mempools. the mining pools wont even get all transactions to manually add into blocks if they circumvent the "average" setting.. because other nodes have refused to relay them.
this overall ends up with an ever increasing fee, while having blocks either spam filled with messages of a novel bloating a block. or empty blocks while still demanding a high fee because the average doesnt decline instantly, but over many blocks. meaning instead of
block 500,000: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00010000fee
block 500,001: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00011000fee
block 500,002: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00012000fee
block 500,003: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00013000fee
block 500,004: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00014000fee
block 500,005: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00015000fee
you will see
block 500,000: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00010000fee
block 500,001: 1tx 4mb avgfee=0.00250000fee - "Call me Ishmael." "Some years ago-" "never mind how long precisely-" "having little or no money"
block 500,002: 0tx 0mb avgfee=0.00019600fee
block 500,003: 0tx 0mb avgfee=0.00019984fee
block 500,004: 0tx 0mb avgfee=0.00020383fee
block 500,005: 0tx 0mb avgfee=0.00020799fee
go on.. i dare you.
using an "average" screws up any chance of having cheap transactions and enforces a fee war, even when there are no full blocks the price does not instantly go down due to there being no demand.
