Bitcoin Forum
December 01, 2021, 07:52:00 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Would you approve the compromise "Segwit + 2MB"?
Yes - 78 (62.4%)
No - 35 (28%)
Don't know - 12 (9.6%)
Total Voters: 125

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB)  (Read 14254 times)
d5000
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3010
Merit: 2925


Decentralization Maximalist


View Profile
March 13, 2017, 08:09:09 PM
 #201

The next questions are:
1) What exactly decides whether it goes up 10% or down?
2) Why that specific period? I think that once per retarget is too frequent; maybe once per month is better. Someone else may have more input on that.
D'accord to your second proposal, 2016 blocks may be a too small period.

Yes, there should be more input from advanced users. If this discussion here gets stalled, a new thread about the modified proposal in the Development/Technical Discussion section would be the way to go, I think - then I would also contact the autors (Garzik, Upal, DooMAD).

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
hv_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 1051

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
March 13, 2017, 08:34:01 PM
 #202

The next questions are:
1) What exactly decides whether it goes up 10% or down?
2) Why that specific period? I think that once per retarget is too frequent; maybe once per month is better. Someone else may have more input on that.
D'accord to your second proposal, 2016 blocks may be a too small period.

Yes, there should be more input from advanced users. If this discussion here gets stalled, a new thread about the modified proposal in the Development/Technical Discussion section would be the way to go, I think - then I would also contact the autors (Garzik, Upal, DooMAD).

What makes this proposel different from BU if the max block size is defined in specific 'quant' sized jumps nodes / miners could vote for ? Such a quant could have the size of 0.2MB and would be added ( or removed ) if the voting reaches some 75% agreement.

The (auto) voting could be done in same manner as the difficulty is adjusted over a block number period.

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Fix real world issues: Check out b-vote.com
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2903


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 13, 2017, 10:24:37 PM
 #203

What makes this proposel different from BU if the max block size is defined in specific 'quant' sized jumps nodes / miners could vote for ? Such a quant could have the size of 0.2MB and would be added ( or removed ) if the voting reaches some 75% agreement.

The (auto) voting could be done in same manner as the difficulty is adjusted over a block number period.
This proposal wouldn't have the following issues:

Quote
BU has no miner threshold for activation
BU has no grace period to allow nodes to upgrade
BU has no checkpoint (AKA wipe-out protection), therefore users could lose funds
BU has no replay attack prevention
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5z6d56/a_summary_of_bitcoin_unlimiteds_critical_problems/

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
Searing
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2842
Merit: 1429


Clueless!


View Profile
March 13, 2017, 11:41:30 PM
 #204

What I'm thinking is there will never be consensus. Anything offered will get say no more
Then 30% adoption due to fud. Thus bitcoin core is happy. They think of btc as a store of value
(Gold).

Thus stuck.

Other Alt coins will fill the consumer use niche imho.

Seems like bitcoin core's strategy.  Apathy rules. 1mb block is just dandy.

Old Style Legacy Plug & Play BBS System. Get it from www.synchro.net. Updated 1/1/19. It also works with Windows 10 and allows 16 bit DOS game doors on the same Win 10 Machine! Five Minute Install! Look it over uninstalls just as fast! Freeware! Full BBS System! It is a frigging hoot!:)
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2903


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 13, 2017, 11:47:44 PM
 #205

Seems like bitcoin core's strategy.  Apathy rules. 1mb block is just dandy.
Bitcoin Core has already offered a solution with bigger block, i.e. Segwit. Apparently the market does not want a block size increase or pool owners (e.g. Jihan) are being severely lobbied into doing the opposite.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 2207



View Profile
March 14, 2017, 12:04:01 AM
 #206

Seems like bitcoin core's strategy.  Apathy rules. 1mb block is just dandy.
Bitcoin Core has already offered a solution with bigger block, i.e. Segwit. Apparently the market does not want a block size increase or pool owners (e.g. Jihan) are being severely lobbied into doing the opposite.

its not a native block increase!
its only a growth if people use segwit keys and only reaches potential amounts dependant on how much segwit key adoption there is.

stop thinking just segwit activation causes native tx's to have 2mb..

you know this. you have admitted such in different posts/topics. so dont exaggerate it into a native base block increase, when its not.

again its only a 'effective size if X,Y,Z is achieved AFTER activation..
no promises no guarantee's.

this 'effective potential' can be inhibited(prevented) by atleast 5 attack vectors that can stop segwit ever getting any effective increase in tx counts

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
Swimmer63
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1593
Merit: 1004



View Profile
March 14, 2017, 12:13:18 AM
 #207

Seems like bitcoin core's strategy.  Apathy rules. 1mb block is just dandy.
Bitcoin Core has already offered a solution with bigger block, i.e. Segwit. Apparently the market does not want a block size increase or pool owners (e.g. Jihan) are being severely lobbied into doing the opposite.

Stupid comments like this don't help with a compromise.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2903


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 14, 2017, 12:15:28 AM
 #208

Seems like bitcoin core's strategy.  Apathy rules. 1mb block is just dandy.
Bitcoin Core has already offered a solution with bigger block, i.e. Segwit. Apparently the market does not want a block size increase or pool owners (e.g. Jihan) are being severely lobbied into doing the opposite.
Stupid comments like this don't help with a compromise.
Apparently someone lacks a brain, and it ain't neither Searing nor I. Segwit is the compromise.

its not a native block increase!
its only a growth if people use segwit keys and only reaches potential amounts dependant on how much segwit key adoption there is.

-snip-
Take away your nonsense somewhere else. Segwit -> Big blocks. Writing long posts won't change that in any way or form.

this 'effective potential' can be inhibited(prevented) by atleast 5 attack vectors that can stop segwit ever getting any effective increase in tx counts
The SAME can be done with BTU. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 2207



View Profile
March 14, 2017, 01:35:05 AM
Last edit: March 14, 2017, 01:48:09 AM by franky1
 #209

this 'effective potential' can be inhibited(prevented) by atleast 5 attack vectors that can stop segwit ever getting any effective increase in tx counts
The SAME can be done with BTU. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

nope not the same.
segwit is still limited and dependant on the 1mb base block.
(by this i mean if no segwit key tx's get into the 1mb base.. the 3mb is empty)
Vs
BU,xt,classic, and and other dynamic proposals, grow beyond the 1mb base. meaning its not limited to 1mb thus requires more effort to spam.

EG SEGWIT
fill a baseblock with 1mb of native garbage and the other 3mb of weight are MEANINGLESS (100%native bloat=0% weight occupied)
you seem to forget that the weight is dependant on the base and what can get into the base to then utilise the weight.
segwit just doesnt give real capacity growth unless a few issues are sorted. which it cannot sort because it doesnt stop native attacks.

all it does is disarm segwit volunteers. but those segwit volunteers are still at the mercy of the 1mb base block and native key spammers.
its not like a berlin wall wher ALL segwit data sits in the 3mbweight. and all native sit in the base
segwit need to get into the base to then spread their legs into the weight.

vs BU, classic, xt (and other real-block growth proposals)
2mb baseblock means it requires twice as much effort..

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2903


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 14, 2017, 06:51:41 AM
 #210

EG SEGWIT
fill a baseblock with 1mb of native garbage and the other 3mb of weight are MEANINGLESS (100%native bloat=0% weight occupied)
you seem to forget that the weight is dependant on the base and what can get into the base to then utilise the weight.
segwit just doesnt give real capacity growth unless a few issues are sorted. which it cannot sort because it doesnt stop native attacks.

all it does is disarm segwit volunteers. but those segwit volunteers are still at the mercy of the 1mb base block and native key spammers.
I've already told you that you can easily prioritize Segwit transactions over native ones as a miner.

vs BU, classic, xt (and other real-block growth proposals)
2mb baseblock means it requires twice as much effort..
No. If the sigops limit remains the same, e.g. 20k, it doesn't matter even if the block size is something absurdly large. You just need to hit the sigops threshold.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3220
Merit: 2599



View Profile
March 14, 2017, 07:40:32 AM
 #211

What I'm thinking is there will never be consensus.

Let's see what happens when some form of UASF gains popularity with people that don't have all day long to sit around shit talking about this



You can all fuck off with your "2MB" compromise, which has taken less than 12 pages to warp itself into 12MB  Roll Eyes

Lauda in particular, you should know better than this by now, which makes me question your intentions towards the whole issue to begin with

I hope you all have sufficient understanding of what "fuck off" means

Vires in numeris
mezzomix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2604
Merit: 1250


View Profile
March 14, 2017, 07:42:40 AM
 #212

I'm fine with segwit + 2MB. I do not support transferring more control to miners by giving them a voting mechanism to decide about the future rules. Some of them currently show us their malicious behavior. We should not reward this by giving them more control.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3220
Merit: 2599



View Profile
March 14, 2017, 08:14:59 AM
 #213

I'm fine with segwit + 2MB.

Which is not what's being proposed

Vires in numeris
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2903


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 14, 2017, 08:29:22 AM
 #214

Let's see what happens when some form of UASF gains popularity with people that don't have all day long to sit around shit talking about this
The problem with that is, as Todd mentioned, that there is no safe & ready implementation in addition to the uncertainity of the safety of the idea itself. The concept is interesting though.

You can all fuck off with your "2MB" compromise, which has taken less than 12 pages to warp itself into 12MB  Roll Eyes
A potential maximum of 12 MB weighted in 5 years is much different from 12 MB right now. Even then, the weight ratio should be adjusted to lower the total maximum.

Quote
Lauda in particular, you should know better than this by now, which makes me question your intentions towards the whole issue to begin with
Stop attacking my character. I was always pro :Segwit -> proper HF. I've been saying this for a long time. The primary problem for me is the lack of a proper proposal (e.g. Luke-jr's is bad, emergent consensus is a disaster).

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
RawDog
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1026



View Profile WWW
March 14, 2017, 08:43:14 AM
 #215

Seems like bitcoin core's strategy.  Apathy rules. 1mb block is just dandy.
Bitcoin Core has already offered a solution with bigger block, i.e. Segwit. Apparently the market does not want a block size increase or pool owners (e.g. Jihan) are being severely lobbied into doing the opposite.
Stupid comments like this don't help with a compromise.
Apparently someone lacks a brain, and it ain't neither Searing nor I. Segwit is the compromise.
SegWit is the altcoin

*Image Removed* *Expletive Removed*  *Obsenity Removed*
What's going on - Slavetards?!!!
Watch my videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE43M1Z8Iew  1FuckYouc6zrtHbnqcHdhrSVhcxgpJgfds
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3220
Merit: 2599



View Profile
March 14, 2017, 08:44:19 AM
Last edit: March 14, 2017, 08:58:40 AM by Carlton Banks
 #216

Stop attacking my character. I was always pro :Segwit -> proper HF. I've been saying this for a long time. The primary problem for me is the lack of a proper proposal (e.g. Luke-jr's is bad, emergent consensus is a disaster).


Your behaviour is being attacked, not your character (seriously, you're now reaching for the bed-wetting "ad-hom" rhetoric)


You've consistently excluded any interest in suddenly changing your mind to "on-chain scaling works", if you said it, it was 1% of your total output for several YEARS , and you've certainly never said "on-chain scaling works", even if you did express an interest in "2MB only".

Now, you're here using all the trust and confidence others might have placed in you to push for the opposite of what you used to say, and this has been 75% of your output in JUST A FEW DAYS. Are you hoping that no-one would notice the huge, gaping contradiction?  Roll Eyes



Now, that's a sudden change in your behaviour, not your character, your character was clearly always prone to hypocrisy and conceit.

Vires in numeris
hv_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 1051

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
March 14, 2017, 08:55:29 AM
 #217

Seems like bitcoin core's strategy.  Apathy rules. 1mb block is just dandy.
Bitcoin Core has already offered a solution with bigger block, i.e. Segwit. Apparently the market does not want a block size increase or pool owners (e.g. Jihan) are being severely lobbied into doing the opposite.
Stupid comments like this don't help with a compromise.
Apparently someone lacks a brain, and it ain't neither Searing nor I. Segwit is the compromise.
SegWit is the altcoin

And it's sold now as the compromise coin.

Choose between bad (do nothing) and evil (HF) ....


I really wonder who should go long that - just B Banks ?

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Fix real world issues: Check out b-vote.com
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2903


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 14, 2017, 09:17:02 AM
 #218

SegWit is the altcoin
No, that is not the case with a SF.

Your behaviour is being attacked, not your character (seriously, you're now reaching for the bed-wetting "ad-hom" rhetoric)
My bad; still sub optimal at this time of day.

Quote
You've consistently excluded any interest in suddenly changing your mind to "on-chain scaling works", if you said it, it was 1% of your total output for several YEARS , and you've certainly never said "on-chain scaling works", even if you did express an interest in "2MB only".
Saying that X MB is acceptable in Y time frame != aon-chain scaling works. I haven't claimed this to be the case either.

Quote
Now, that's a sudden change in your behaviour, not your character, your character was clearly always prone to hypocrisy and conceit.
And there it is. Is this your way of handling things when someone has a different stance on a matter?

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3220
Merit: 2599



View Profile
March 14, 2017, 09:25:16 AM
 #219

You're wriggling Lauda, visibly


Saying "X MB is acceptable in Y time frame" == saying on-chain scaling works


Go on, try again. See if Franky's strategies work for you, repeat your logical fallacy again and again and again


Quote
Now, that's a sudden change in your behaviour, not your character, your character was clearly always prone to hypocrisy and conceit.
And there it is. Is this your way of handling things when someone has a different stance on a matter?

Proving them wrong? Why yes, when they are wrong, that's what one does



My assessment proves that you have built up trust in the long term, then used up all of that trust in a couple of days to sell a contradiction.

Problem?

Vires in numeris
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2903


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 14, 2017, 09:28:33 AM
 #220

You're wriggling Lauda, visibly


Saying "X MB is acceptable in Y time frame" == saying on-chain scaling works


Go on, try again. See if Franky's strategies work for you, repeat your logical fallacy again and again and again
Following your own logic, by supporting Segwit (2/4MB maximum) you are stating the same, i.e. saying on-chain scaling works. Sigh.

Proving them wrong? Why yes, when they are wrong, that's what one does
You can do that without attacking character/behavior or whatever.

Quote
My assessment proves that you have built up trust in the long term, then used up all of that trust in a couple of days to sell a contradiction.

Problem?
Untrue. I am not selling anything. Bitcoin Core roadmap has a dynamic block size/flexcaps down the road AFAIK.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!