[POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB)

[Searing]

I have read this compromise proposal from "ecafyelims" at Reddit and want to know if there is support for it here in this forum.

Compromise: Let's merge BIP 102 (2MB HF) and BIP 141 (Segwit SF)

Let's merge BIP 102 (2MB HF) and BIP 141 (Segwit SF) into a single HF (with overwhelming majority consensus).

Since Segwit changes how the blocksize is calculated to use weights, our goal with the merger would be 2MB of transactional data.

Segwit weighting system measures the transaction weight to be 3x(non-witness base data) + (base data with witness data). This weight is then limited to 4M, favoring witness data.

Transactions aren't all of base or witness. So, in practice, the blocksize limit is somewhere between 1MB (only base data) and 4MB (only witness data) with Segwit.

With this proposed merger, we will increase Segwit weight limit from 4M to 8M. This would allow 2MB of base data, which is the goal of the 2MB HF.

It's a win-win solution. We get 2MB increase and we get Segwit.

I know this compromise won't meet the ideals of everyone, but that's why it's a compromise. No one wins wholly, but we're better off than where we started.

It's very similar to what was already proposed last year at the Satoshi Roundtable. What is the opinion of the Bitcointalk community?

AT this point in time it is about POWER to move the future of btc imho. The devs of any flavor..most are mega whales..so it is the coding/power trip now...
as reasonable as this sounds...I just don't see it happening because of  price above 1k and 1mb block size for bitcoin core is just dandy for all they care. NOT saying
I agree on either camp but bitcoin core...sees BTC as a store of value..so imho...it can sit at 1mb for years as long as price does reflect that store of value thinking

thus stalemate..thus 1mb btc...so only other option if I'm correct (hope i'm not) is an attempted BU fork and/or BU gets 51% of the folk to push their view

all very silly..just compromise already..its NOT like if we had another unexpected btc fork like back in the day ..they would not pop out a hard fix anyway

(what do I know I at one time drank the BFL kool aid) but just seems it is about status/power and the devs of any flavor just really, really don't like the other camp

 

[1713418500]

1713418500

[1713418500]

1713418500

[1713418500]

1713418500

[1713418500]

1713418500

[1713418500]

1713418500

[Carlton Banks]

just compromise already

Segwit IS the compromise. I've refrained from saying this up until recently, but I think 4MB is too big. I'd be much happier with a Segwit proposal that kept the size at 1MB, but in the hope that others would recognise that 4MB is meeting in the middle, I helped to promote Segwit hoping they would accept it. The fact they have rejected Segwit only demonstrates that bigger blocks has got nothing to do with it, it's about having power over the source code.

[franky1]

segwit is not the compromise

activating segwit solves nothing.
moving people to segwit keys after activation is then a 'percentage of solution'

never a complete 100% solving bugs, or never 100% fixing or never 100% boosting. because even after activation segwit will still be contending against native key users

also the 4mb segwit weight is not utilised.
AT VERY BEST the expectation is 2.1mb.. the other 1.9mb would be left empty.
segwit cannot resegwit again to utilise the 1.9mb extra weight.

the extra weight would be (from reading core/blockstream plans) with bloat data to include confidential commitments appended onto the end of a tx. (not extra tx capacity) to bloat a tx that would have, without confidential commitments been alot leaner


segwit also turns into a 2 tier network of upstream 'filters' and downstream nodes. rather than a equal network of nodes that all agree on the same thing.

for the reddit crew.. in simple terms. segwit fullnode = full data.. downstream= 'tl:dr' nodes

[7788bitcoin]

They are just two very different approaches... I thought the activation of Segwit will then followed by "easier/better" future plan of blocksize increase?

Perhaps we can compromise and buy time by allowing bigger blocks (eg. 2MB) to activate, and then decide if Segwit should be implemented?

[inBitweTrust]

This second compromise is nothing but a veiled attempt at setting a precedent that we force a HF without consensus on the community and either giving the decision to miners or developers instead of the users themselves. As we can see from this poll , consensus over a HF is not anywhere near being found and thus the HF proposal offered isn't anywhere good enough to be considered. I don't want to even consider accepting politically motivated hard forks and just want to focus on whats right for bitcoin.

[Carlton Banks]

They are just two very different approaches... I thought the activation of Segwit will then followed by "easier/better" future plan of blocksize increase?

Perhaps we can compromise and buy time by allowing bigger blocks (eg. 2MB) to activate, and then decide if Segwit should be implemented?

Segwit IS the compromise, and it's more of a compromise towards big blocks than what you're suggesting.


Which is bigger, 2 MB blocks or 4 MB blocks  

[naughty1]

As many have argued before, I think this will not work, whereas in the other hand it is damaging, I personally think segwit + a different transformation will be more flexible, such as BIP 106. I have a great deal of faith in this transformation, and we need a healthy and predictable change that we should not take unexpected measures. But in the actual situation, I think this is very difficult, the miners will always keep their decision, so it is difficult to change.

[AngryDwarf]

Which is bigger, 2 MB blocks or 4 MB blocks  

And that 4MB is 1MB of transactional data space, and 3MB of segwit data space, the latter of which is mostly reserved for future use.

So don't mislead others into thinking that all of a sudden we will get a 4 fold increase in transactional capacity. We won't.

[franky1]

They are just two very different approaches... I thought the activation of Segwit will then followed by "easier/better" future plan of blocksize increase?

Perhaps we can compromise and buy time by allowing bigger blocks (eg. 2MB) to activate, and then decide if Segwit should be implemented?

or if having an organised hard consensus (meaning old nodes have to drop off anyway(the small minority outside activation threshold)
dynamic blocks (using policy.h(lower bound) as the dynamic flagging scaler) and segwit keys. where the witness is appended to the tail of the tx.
without needing to have separation(of tree's(blocks)).

that way ALL nodes validate the same thing.

(ill get to the punchline later about the then lack of need for segwit.. but want to see if people run scenario's in their head first to click their lightbulb moment into realising what segwit does or doesnt do)

[franky1]

for clarity

Which is bigger, 2 MB blocks or 4 MB blocks  

And that 4MB is
1MB of transactional data space, and 3MB buffer space, that only partially fills dependant on the % of segwit users in the base block
(0% segwit in 1mb base=0of the 3mb extra used(1mb total))
(10% segwit in 1mb base=0.1mb of the 3mb used(1.1mb total))
(100% segwit in 1mb base=1.1mb of the 3mb used(2.1mb total))

 the latter of which(atleast 1.9mb) is mostly reserved for future use.

So don't mislead others into thinking that all of a sudden we will get a 4 fold increase in transactional capacity. We won't.

FTFY

[Lauda]

And that 4MB is 1MB of transactional data space, and 3MB of segwit data space, the latter of which is mostly reserved for future use.

So don't mislead others into thinking that all of a sudden we will get a 4 fold increase in transactional capacity. We won't.

In theory you can get up to 14 TPS with Segwit. However, with realistic usage that is not the case (similarly with the current network having a theoretical capacity of 7 TPS). Segwit will definitely deliver >2 MB according to the latest usage patterns.

segwit is not the compromise

It is.

activating segwit solves nothing.

It does.

because even after activation segwit will still be contending against native key users

Nobody cares. You can't DOS the network with "native" keys post Segwit.

segwit also turns into a 2 tier network of upstream 'filters' and downstream nodes. rather than a equal network of nodes that all agree on the same thing.

This is only the case if the majority of nodes don't support Segwit. Ironically to your statement, the big majority is in favor of Segwit.

[franky1]

And that 4MB is 1MB of transactional data space, and 3MB of segwit data space, the latter of which is mostly reserved for future use.

So don't mislead others into thinking that all of a sudden we will get a 4 fold increase in transactional capacity. We won't.

In theory you can get up to 14 TPS with Segwit. However, with realistic usage that is not the case (similarly with the current network having a theoretical capacity of 7 TPS). Segwit will definitely deliver >2 MB according to the latest usage patterns.

emphasis >2mb
> (should be UPTO, but your saying more than) but only if 100% segwit key use to get 2mb
dont down play it that nothing needs to be done by users to attain the 2mb..
also factoring in native spam and users not using sgwit keys. the entire baseblock wont be 100% segwit users meaning not attaining 2mb
EG
imagine there were 4500 users. so far they argue over blocksize that can only fit ~2250
even if 4499 users moved to segwit.
1 users can make 2249 NATIVE transactions. meaning only 1 segwit transaction gets in. so the 'blocksize. only becomes 1.000444

segwit is not the compromise

It is.

lauda: compromise meaning lost, sold out, victim 'you left your password on girlfriends phone, now your funds are compromised'
community: compromise meaning agreed reduced level

segwit is not an agreed reduced level. its a risk of screwing many over for the fortunes of the corporate elite

activating segwit solves nothing.

It does.

go on PROVE IT!! explain it

because even after activation segwit will still be contending against native key users

Nobody cares. You can't DOS the network with "native" keys post Segwit.

you can.
native keys still work after segwit activates. otherwise 16mill coins are locked and unspendable!!

segwit also turns into a 2 tier network of upstream 'filters' and downstream nodes. rather than a equal network of nodes that all agree on the same thing.

This is only the case if the majority of nodes don't support Segwit. Ironically to your statement, the big majority is in favor of Segwit.

segwit activates by pool only.
meaning(if all pools were equal for simple explanation)
19 out of 20 pools activate it.
1 pool gets disreguarded.
but then the node count turns to
~3000 upstream full validation UPSTREAM filters.
and
3000 hodgepodge of downstream nodes that dont fully validate, may have witness may not have, may be prunned may not be.

which the upstream nodes wont sync from but "could" filter to (if they were not banlist biased)

[Lauda]

emphasis >2mb
> (UPTO) but only if 100% segwit key use to get 2mb
dont down play it that nothing needs to be done by users to attain the 2mb.. users need to move funds to new keys to attain it.

There is nothing wrong with that. Users are incentivized to start using Segwit and plenty of providers are either already ready or are 'in-progress'.

lauda compromise meaning lost, sold out, victim 'you left your password on girlfriends phone, now your funds are compromised'

No. That is just one of the meanings, see here: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/compromise

segwit is not an agreed reduced level. its a risk of screwing many over for the fortunes of the corporate elite

This is bullshit and you know it.

go on PROVE IT!! explain it

Everything is properly explained on the Bitcoin Core website. Do I really need to draw it out for you?

you can.
native keys still work after segwit activates. otherwise 16mill coins are locked and unspendable!!

Wrong. The DOS attack vector is not present at 1 MB, and you can't create a 2 MB block with native keys when Segwit is activated.

~3000 upstream full validation UPSTREAM filters.
and
3000 hodgepodge of downstream nodes that dont fully validate, may have witness may not have, may be prunned may not be.

You can blame BU for their stubbornness to implement SWSF. A lot of the very outdated nodes are irrelevant IMO, they don't properly validate some newer soft forks anyways (+ potentially have security holes as they can be very outdated, e.g. <0.10.0).

[franky1]

you can.
native keys still work after segwit activates. otherwise 16mill coins are locked and unspendable!!

Wrong. The DOS attack vector is not present at 1 MB, and you can't create a 2 MB block with native keys when Segwit is activated.

lauda please

native keys would fill the 1mb base block so that segwit cant get a chance.. thus there wont be a 2mb block..
EG
imagine there were 4500 users. so far they argue over blocksize that can only fit ~2250
even if 4499 users moved to sgwit.
1 users can make 2249 NATIVE transactions. meaning only 1 segwit transaction gets in the base. so the 'blocksize. only becomes 1.000444
in short
even if 99.9% of users moved over to segwit, they are still subject to normal bloat from a malicious bloater filling the base block. which takes up the base block space to not allow segwit key users in. thus the ratio of segwit in base:witness is super low... thus total blocksize remains super low, but the base block is super filled with native bloat

[Lauda]

you can.
native keys still work after segwit activates. otherwise 16mill coins are locked and unspendable!!

Wrong. The DOS attack vector is not present at 1 MB, and you can't create a 2 MB block with native keys when Segwit is activated.

lauda please

native keys would fill the 1mb base block so that segwit cant get a chance.. thus there isnt a 2mb block..

In other words: You can't DOS the network at 1 MB using native keys post Segwit. Which is my whole point. Stop with these strawman arguments.

[franky1]

In other words: You can't DOS the network at 1 MB using native keys post Segwit. Which is my whole point. Stop with these strawman arguments.

you need to really study more.
simply saying "cant b'coz cant" or "wrong because ad-hom"

is becoming very apparent as your rebuttal.

please study these things beyond the 2 paragraph sales pitches of empty promises.

[Lauda]

In other words: You can't DOS the network at 1 MB using native keys post Segwit. Which is my whole point. Stop with these strawman arguments.

you need to really study more.
simply saying "cant b'coz cant" or "wrong because ad-hom"

is becoming very apparent as your rebuttal.

please study these things beyond the 2 paragraph sales pitches of empty promises.

I don't need to study anything. You have a fallacious way of arguing and reasoning. You completely changed my argument in order to refute it with your own. You created an argument that I did not make, also known as a strawman argument. You can't DOS the network with native keys with Segwit. Period. You should buy this with your employers money:

[European Central Bank]

no one will compromise and something will break. either that's bitcoin itself or the will of one of the opposing sides. i kind of get the impression the unlimited fans would prefer to fatally mangle bitcoin and then blame core afterwards.

best case is that unlimited becomes the alt it always wanted to be and everyone else ignores it until it goes away.

[franky1]

In other words: You can't DOS the network at 1 MB using native keys post Segwit. Which is my whole point. Stop with these strawman arguments.

you need to really study more.
simply saying "cant b'coz cant" or "wrong because ad-hom"

is becoming very apparent as your rebuttal.

please study these things beyond the 2 paragraph sales pitches of empty promises.

I don't need to study anything. You have a fallacious way of arguing and reasoning. You completely changed my argument in order to refute it with your own. You created an argument that I did not make, also known as a strawman argument.

you can fill blocks after activation with native transactions, otherwise the 16mill coins(46mill UTXO's) are locked and unspendable (because they are on native keys right now).

if you are saying native keys cant be spent on activation day.. then your funds cannot be added to a block (because your own funds are on native keys right now)

if you can admit native transactions can be added to blocks. you start to see that people with native keys will just spam the 1mb base block.
thus
reducing the room inside the 1mb baseblock to reduce how many other peoples tx's get in. and thus reduce the ratio of base:witness usage.. to then not attain the 2mb you harp on about.
EG
if only a couple segwit tx gets in.. it equates to something small like ~1.000450 total serialised blocksize, but where the 'block' is 100% full. meaning everyone elses tx is sat in mempool waiting.. and waiting


my point being is this
you said

Segwit will definitely deliver >2 MB according to the latest usage patterns.

you have mis-sold a "definitely deliver' by then saying > (im thinking you should have used < but even that is still mis-selling)

meaning its an EMPTY promise.
just like saying
bitcoin 2009-2016 will definetly deliver >7tx/s (actual math was something like 7.37tx/s)

which we all know we never got to 7tx/s... thus it was an empty promise
much like ISP's mis-selling internet speeds
sign with us and you will definitely get upto 100mb/s

users sign up.. no one gets 100mb/s and best some people get is 60mb/s and majority get under 40mb/s

and you can then come back with the stupid argument "i did say > (morethan (but logically you should have said upto) or be more honest abaout chances of getting it) i never promised actually get"

[Carlton Banks]

Which is bigger, 2 MB blocks or 4 MB blocks  

And that 4MB is 1MB of transactional data space, and 3MB of segwit data space, the latter of which is mostly reserved for future use.

So don't mislead others into thinking that all of a sudden we will get a 4 fold increase in transactional capacity. We won't.

When you say "Segwit data", you're talking about the data that signs transactions, to prove that the real user actually sent the money.


Are you sure it's not you misleading everyone dwarf? By pretending that signing the transactions is somehow something new, or unneeded?