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

[Xester]

You have a good point, but I'm pretty sure that there will be no compromise.
The BU side thinks that the Segwit side are idiots, and the Segwit side knows that the BU side are idiots.
There is no compromise

Both parties have their own side which they want to protect and defend. They are all biased and have their own personal intentions to satisfy. They would not give up their pride and tried to make a merger to settle the issues. That is why the exchanges have made a move to just make the production of Bitcoin Unlimited as an altcoin and it was named BTU. Maybe segwit won this round and there will be no more compromises to be made.

[1714175477]

1714175477

[1714175477]

1714175477

[1714175477]

1714175477

[DooMAD]

For anyone who may have missed it, BitPay are also weighing up the pros and cons of an adaptive blocksize.  There is increasing momentum behind this idea, so let's do something positive with it.  It will likely need more safeguards and improvements before we can move forward with the idea.  Everyone needs to think long and hard about potential attack vectors and ways to game the system and, if possible, provide some solutions to those issues.  I'm confident that if we can bolster a few weaknesses and minimise the incentives to carry out spam attacks to artificially inflate the blocksize, we can come up with a good overall compromise.

[freebutcaged]

Actually segwit will eventually force everyone including Satoshi to move their coins into segwit keys to move the entire system up to a new level of security and flexibility, think about it if segwit is a bad thing and can destroy bitcoin why would they want to turn their own gold into iron or just dust?
that doesn't make any sense even if they manage to take control over the network which they already have(%85 of miners are running Core nodes) it is something that we need to check and study for ourselves, why did you enter bitcoin? did you go and read the code line by line?

[Tigggger]

For anyone who may have missed it, BitPay are also weighing up the pros and cons of an adaptive blocksize.  There is increasing momentum behind this idea, so let's do something positive with it.  It will likely need more safeguards and improvements before we can move forward with the idea.  Everyone needs to think long and hard about potential attack vectors and ways to game the system and, if possible, provide some solutions to those issues.  I'm confident that if we can bolster a few weaknesses and minimise the incentives to carry out spam attacks to artificially inflate the blocksize, we can come up with a good overall compromise.

Most users will probably be happy with any proposal that increases the block size, the BIP100 revision also seems sensible.

The BU group are anti-segwit/ln (for obvious reasons) but may also be against their own proposal, IE it's just a blocking and/or leverage position.

The core group are very unlikely to roll back back their position either as too much time and money has been 'invested' in their solution.

Supporters of both groups are quick to blame the other for the downturn in the current BTC price, but they are both to blame IMHO, the fact that no solution is currently likely is just a plausible a reason, but unless you talk to all the people selling there is no way to know for sure.

Status Quo, seems the likely winner, and Bitcoin will continue to suffer as a result, maybe it will take that suffering for a consensus to emerge.

[Carlton Banks]

Actually segwit will eventually force everyone including Satoshi to move their coins into segwit keys to move the entire system up to a new level of security and flexibility, think about it if segwit is a bad thing and can destroy bitcoin why would they want to turn their own gold into iron or just dust?
that doesn't make any sense even if they manage to take control over the network which they already have(%85 of miners are running Core nodes) it is something that we need to check and study for ourselves, why did you enter bitcoin? did you go and read the code line by line?

That's an argument for sitting back and watching Bitcoin fail when the ECDSA signature scheme (which Bitcoin uses) is threatened by future cryptographic advances.

The keys and signatures are the weakest crypto in the Bitcoin system, all the honest experts agree that external attacks using new crypto will force us move to new keypairs eventually. In that situation, Satoshi will have to move his coins just like anyone else, or the new crypto methods that break the current key scheme can and will steal their BTC held at addreses using the old keypairs whatever they do or do not want.


And besides which, you're confused. Segwit is a soft fork, that respects the ability of users who want to carry on using P2PKH and P2SH keys. No-one is being forced to do anything, although it's going to be cheaper once the non-nested P2W key scheme is instituted (sipa made a new proposal for those new key types fairly recently)

[AngryDwarf]

Wonder whether people consider this to be a good compromise solution:

https://bitcoinec.info/

[dinofelis]

That's an argument for sitting back and watching Bitcoin fail when the ECDSA signature scheme (which Bitcoin uses) is threatened by future cryptographic advances.

You still have some time    Bitcoin will fail in much more mundane ways long, long long before that will happen. 

It is much simpler to use other crypto whenever that comes, than to try to repair a broken car.  But for the moment (and many many years to come), it isn't broken.  Forget the idea that a crypto currency is "for ever".  It has a life cycle, like any product.  And really, bitcoin will reach the end of its life cycle long, long before that cryptographic system breaks down.   There's nothing wrong with systems reaching the end of their life cycle.  You simply switch to better systems in that case.
It means you stop buying bitcoin and selling bitcoin, and you start buying Xcoin and selling Xcoin.  Nothing dramatical.  But don't dream that bitcoin is forever.  Nothing is.  Especially nothing that is in this technology.  Even today, bitcoin tech is oldfashioned and clunky, where it was brilliant and shiny when it came out.  It will still last a while.  But not as long as elliptic curve crypto.

[AngryDwarf]

Wonder whether people consider this to be a good compromise solution:

https://bitcoinec.info/

Thinking about this myself, wouldn't it just make a lot of the core code 2 tier network backwards compatibility solution redundant technical debt?

[Carlton Banks]

That's an argument for sitting back and watching Bitcoin fail when the ECDSA signature scheme (which Bitcoin uses) is threatened by future cryptographic advances.

You still have some time    Bitcoin will fail in much more mundane ways long, long long before that will happen. 

That was an example to contrast with the "Segwit address format = stealing Satoshi's BTC" argument


Please read the whole post in context before replying, you're wasting alot of space with your ill-conceived replies

[dinofelis]

That's an argument for sitting back and watching Bitcoin fail when the ECDSA signature scheme (which Bitcoin uses) is threatened by future cryptographic advances.

You still have some time    Bitcoin will fail in much more mundane ways long, long long before that will happen. 

That was an example to contrast with the "Segwit address format = stealing Satoshi's BTC" argument


Please read the whole post in context before replying, you're wasting alot of space with your ill-conceived replies

I read your post.  The point is, that there is no reason to "repair" a coin.  A coin is meant to be what it is, according to its protocol (not its *software*).  If that protocol fails in one fundamental way or another, one should move to another coin (that is, another protocol).

[Carlton Banks]

So every time a bug arises, hard-fork it, right? It's a good thing you're not project managing any cryptocoins, no-one would ever buy in to begin with faced with that prospect

[dinofelis]

So every time a bug arises, hard-fork it, right? It's a good thing you're not project managing any cryptocoins, no-one would ever buy in to begin with faced with that prospect

Not a bug.  A bug is a thing about software.  I'm talking about a protocol error.  A mathematics or cryptography error, an error in the economical dynamics.  Software can change, software only IMPLEMENTS (correctly or not) the protocol.  But the protocol IS the coin. 

For instance, it is part of the protocol of bitcoin that just ANY UTXO from any block can ALWAYS be used as an input to a transaction, using your private key in a way that was written down long ago.  If you leave your private key to your kids, and they leave it to their grand children, .... and 500 years from now, that private key should still be usable if that coin still exists.  If that's not the case, then that's not bitcoin. 

Now, if the cryptography breaks down and that private key can be deduced by cracking 2 hash functions and elliptic key signatures, then bitcoin is simply done.  There's no point in trying to fix that, if by fixing that, you break the original protocol.

Now, imagine that there was software that had bugs in the crypto software and accepted erroneous signatures.  That is simply a bug.  It means that maybe 1000 blocks have been generated that were INVALID according to the protocol, even though the buggy software accepted it.

The right thing to do is to orphan these 1000 blocks, because they are simply not valid according to the protocol, and were ERRONEOUSLY considered valid blocks by faulty software, and to start mining again from the point where the last valid block (according to the written protocol) was made.

If not, then whatever thing is being used, is not bitcoin.  Because bitcoin was an immutable protocol. (not unmodifiable software, that *implements* a protocol).  A protocol is a white paper with all details of it.  Not a piece of software.

[Carlton Banks]

I disagree, if there's a bug in the protocol, why bail-out the ignorant people who didn't discover the bug before they bought the coin


Your principle is flawed, and even if it isn't, what are you going to do about it? There's no way to force your idea on anyone, and so we'll just have to wait and see whether or not reality can demonstrate that you're either right or wrong....


......and oh look, the Bitcoin design and protocol have both been upgraded many, many times, and we're reaping the benefits of that right now.

Meanwhile, back in your own personal TheoreticalLand, you've got more tedious waffle for us, do go ahead

[Shiver]

Since Satoshi hadn't considered ASICS, but wrote about CPU, anyone wanting to be as true as possible to the original vision would likely want SegWit+LN for an equitable distribution of the work between all volunteers (perhaps 50,000 plus users from all of the users - i.e dedicated hashing devices rather than clients like phones), which would be bad news for heavily invested mega miners, but better for the network and distribution to be in almost all time zones (and possible BTC rewards to lots of different people rather than just a couple of outfits earning all the coin.  Hashing power will come down drastically initially but so what? - we're getting back to the 1%er syndrome and I'm sure the intention was to avoid exactly that).

Personally I'm prepared to wait a couple of weeks for recalibration of the difficulty if they all dropped out on the same day (highly unlikely since having consensus would likely make price go up and they still get their 12.5 lottery drops, and LN wouldn't be an immediate release anyhow), but it will once again allow average users to be participants in BTC to contribute out of their own electricity bill a little hashing power (maybe just a USB miner).

The rational holder of BTC who wants to see it going up and add more stability for the cost of a USB stick plus electricity, minus a few dollars a year in fee earnings and feel it's for a good cause, I'm sure there would be many that would volunteers.  I would for one.

[dinofelis]

I disagree, if there's a bug in the protocol, why bail-out the ignorant people who didn't discover the bug before they bought the coin

I'm not proposing to bail out anyone   I'm just saying that whining about a crypto because it doesn't have the right features and "should evolve" is not the right attitude: changing to a better crypto is.  The only thing where this hurts, is in the monetary belief in eternity, but things are never eternal. 

Your principle is flawed, and even if it isn't, what are you going to do about it? There's no way to force your idea on anyone, and so we'll just have to wait and see whether or not reality can demonstrate that you're either right or wrong....

I think my principle is right.  Not "morally right" but "factually right".   And yes, I don't think that bitcoin will change unless it is totally centralized and that central authority (a cartel of 5 miners for instance) decides upon whatever should happen to bitcoin.

My conviction is that as long as bitcoin is decentralized, the protocol is protected by the dynamics of immutability.  And all the animosity we see is nothing else but that dynamics at work: the fact of sufficiently diverse antagonists (decentralisation) not being able to agree over anything but status quo, because all change can be done in 10 different ways, and each antagonist has HIS way.  So I think that we are now stuck with the bitcoin protocol as it is, and 1 MB blocks.  For ever.  Unless a cartel of 5 miners (and maybe a Chinese government official) in a room somewhere decide otherwise.

......and oh look, the Bitcoin design and protocol have both been upgraded many, many times, and we're reaping the benefits of that right now.

Apart from the very early years, I would doubt that.  I don't think that there has ever been a hard fork in bitcoin.  Soft forks are protocol restrictions, so in as much as 51% of PoW decides, imposing soft forks is not really a protocol modification ; going back however, is.  Can you give many examples of protocol upgrades ?  The block format is the same, the block header is the same, the signature scheme is the same, the bitcoin instruction set is the same as far as I know, .... I really wonder what has changed in the bitcoin protocol, that is, in the way to write valid block chains ?  (apart the very first beginnings when bitcoin was worth zilch and no mechanisms were locked in by profit and antagonism yet)

(the network protocol is much less important as it is volatile: what remains is the block chain).

You know of many hard forks of bitcoin in the past ?

Meanwhile, back in your own personal TheoreticalLand, you've got more tedious waffle for us, do go ahead

It is my way to build my own understanding.

[Carlton Banks]

Significant changes to the Bitcoin protocol were soft-forked into the coin only last year, and in 2015, and in 2014


That completely contradicts your argument, 100%. Spare us your bloviated replies, you're talking nonsense.

[dinofelis]

Since Satoshi hadn't considered ASICS, but wrote about CPU, anyone wanting to be as true as possible to the original vision would likely want SegWit+LN for an equitable distribution of the work between all volunteers

I think you're being very naive about LN, much more so that Satoshi's naivity about proof of work.  The LN only makes sense when there are VERY BIG hubs to which normal users connect.  The reason is that in order to be able to pay a random person over the LN you need to find a series of nodes that can propagate your payment to destiny before settling on that path.  Settling costs a fee.  In order for the LN to be competitive with direct on chain transactions, a LN channel needs on average to transact AT LEAST a number of transactions, equal to the number of hops between sender and receiver.  In other words, if on average, a transaction takes 20 hops between a sender and a receiver, that means that on average, each LN channel must transact 20 transactions before settling, or direct on chain transactions would be cheaper.

This means that you have to "lock in" on average 20 times the amount of a single transaction in each of your LN channels to your neighbours EVEN TO BREAK EVEN, if you charge the same fee to your customers, than an on chain fee.
The more you can keep your LN channels open before settling, the better your margin becomes (between the fees you can charge for a LN transaction, and the block chain fee).  But you are not alone in settling: your counterparty can settle too !

The economies of scale in this system are evident: the most profitable LN nodes, that can offer the most competitive LN fees, and can guarantee the best probability to reach destination, are BIG HUBS that connect amongst them, with very large amounts locked up in their channels.  Small players are CUSTOMERS, that have to open a channel to their BANK/hub and keep it open to process at least say, 20 transactions before closing and having to pay an on-chain fee.

The economies of scale in the LN are even much more pronounced than the economies of scale in proof of work.  So the centralization will go even faster.  Bitcoin is now in the hands of 5 people (the 5 mining pools that make up more than 51%), and for sure in the hands of 14 people (controlling more than 90% of the hash rate).

Bitcoin is hence a large majority 14 people oligarchy.  But it took several years for this centralisation to take place.   The LN will do this much faster.  Probably 10-15 "banks" of hubs will form rather quickly if the LN is to function.

[dinofelis]

Significant changes to the Bitcoin protocol were soft-forked into the coin only last year, and in 2015, and in 2014

As I said, soft forks are not protocol changes, but protocol restrictions.  
There is BIP 66, BIP 65, BIP 34, BIP 30 and BIP 16

BIP 34 was about the version number of blocks and from 2012 (still the cheap years of bitcoin)

BIP 65 introduced a new instruction in the bitcoin instruction OPcodes

BIP 66 solved an ambiguity concerning OPENSSL

All these things are just technical aspects, soft forks, and do not affect in the slightest bit the usual way of how people use bitcoin economically.  I even don't think that these aspects are much used.  All of them have only been activated with 95% consensus which was easily established.  You can hardly say that they modify the original protocol in its way of working.

These are technical improvements that don't affect what people actually do with bitcoin, they don't affect the economics of fees, rewards, and so on.

In other words, they were not "significant changes".  Most people would never notice.

[jbreher]

But the protocol IS the coin. 

Well, no. In addition to the protocol, the coin is also the ledger.

I don't believe you are right on your immutability claim. Plate tectonics may be analogous. Two forces are working in opposition. As the stresses get higher and higher, eventually something snaps, and a new equilibrium is formed.

Hey - it's an analogy, not a model.

[dinofelis]

But the protocol IS the coin.  

Well, no. In addition to the protocol, the coin is also the ledger.

Yes, you're right.  I meant to say that if you fundamentally change the protocol, you have a different coin.  But of course, if you start a new chain, you ALSO have a new coin, as you correctly point out.

I don't believe you are right on your immutability claim. Plate tectonics may be analogous. Two forces are working in opposition. As the stresses get higher and higher, eventually something snaps, and a new equilibrium is formed.

My idea is: where does immutability even come from ?  Why should people join a system of which the rules can arbitrarily change ?  Would you buy a coin of which chances are that tomorrow, "a majority" votes that you don't own that coin any more ?  Would you trade value for transactions that can be undone the very next day "by majority" ?

Even though in principle, any consensus mechanism can change just anything, any time, you would EXPECT that the basic rules you subscribed to when entering the system, are "enforced" by some mechanism, no ?

But as that "mechanism" has no centralized leadership, and is to be trustless, it cannot have any "moral decision power".  It cannot distinguish which changes are in fact "good", and which changes are "bad".   So there *must be a mechanism that enforces stability of the rules*.  That mechanism is what guarantees immutability.  If you don't think that such a mechanism is at work, you must presume that there are only 2 possibilities:

1) there is a central form of authority, that will distinguish good from bad ; for instance, a genuine majority vote inspired by charismatic leadership IN WHICH YOU HAVE TO HAVE TRUST

2) anything can happen any moment, and your holdings, transactions, whatever, can and will change in an ARBITRARY way any moment.

In 1) you don't have a decentralized, trustless system.  You have something very similar to normal banking.
In 2), you have a totally arbitrary system that is unstable.  Impossible to generate any reasonable monetary belief.

My idea is that 1) is possible, but that there IS a mechanism at work: decentralized antagonism.  No antagonist is strong enough, and can find enough collusion, to get HIS changes imposed by majority.  No majority can be reached over anything else but status quo on IMPORTANT (economical) aspects of the system, simply because there are different ways to change the system and too many different antagonists which are not colluding and have no common leadership (= my definition of "decentralized").

As such, only status quo can have a majority "vote" by so many non-colluding antagonists.  This is the cause of immutability, and the fundamental property that can make decentralized trustless systems develop monetary belief.

If there is a majority that imposes change, it means that the system was centralized under leadership.

However, you are right that hard forks (new coin creation) can be performed by just any antagonist.  In that case, people vote in the market: but this is not "leadership".  Any antagonist, no matter how small, can do this, and the success of his modification emerges in the market, leaderless.  The old system, however, remains immutable.  (but can die)