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

[d5000]

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).

[1715110269]

1715110269

[1715110269]

1715110269

[1715110269]

1715110269

[1715110269]

1715110269

[1715110269]

1715110269

[hv_]

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.

[Lauda]

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:

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/

[Searing]

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.

[Lauda]

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.

[franky1]

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

[Swimmer63]

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]

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.

[franky1]

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.

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..

[Lauda]

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.

[Carlton Banks]

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 

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

[mezzomix]

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]

I'm fine with segwit + 2MB.

Which is not what's being proposed

[Lauda]

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  

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.

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).

[RawDog]

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

[Carlton Banks]

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?  



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

[hv_]

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 ?

[Lauda]

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.

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.

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?

[Carlton Banks]

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

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?

[Lauda]

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.

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.