From: jl2012 <jl2012@xbt•hk>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach•org>
Cc: Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness in the context of Scaling Bitcoin
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 05:00:24 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <18f0e80b0a55272a61d547f59efc6c9d@xbt.hk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-sMdp1+mcNZc_yfwx59EAwSkFUHekRrqcYXsuLVoCw=1A@mail.gmail.com>
I know my reply is a long one but please read before you hit send. I
have 2 proposals: fast BIP102 + slow SWSF and fast SWSF only. I guess no
one here is arguing for not doing segwit; and it is on the top of my
wish list. My main argument (maybe also Jeff's) is that segwit is too
complicated and may not be a viable short term solution (with the
reasons I listed that I don't want to repeat)
And also I don't agree with you that BIP102 is *strictly* inferior than
segwit. We never had a complex softfork like segwit, but we did have a
successful simple hardfork (BIP50), and BIP102 is very simple. (Details
in my last post. I'm not going to repeat)
Mark Friedenbach 於 2015-12-17 04:33 寫到:
> There are many reasons to support segwit beyond it being a soft-fork.
> For example:
>
> * the limitation of non-witness data to no more than 1MB makes the
> quadratic scaling costs in large transaction validation no worse than
> they currently are;
> * redeem scripts in witness use a more accurate cost accounting than
> non-witness data (further improvements to this beyond what Pieter has
> implemented are possible); and
> * segwit provides features (e.g. opt-in malleability protection) which
> are required by higher-level scaling solutions.
>
> With that in mind I really don't understand the viewpoint that it
> would be better to engage a strictly inferior proposal such as a
> simple adjustment of the block size to 2MB.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-17 10:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-16 20:38 Jeff Garzik
2015-12-16 20:50 ` Matt Corallo
2015-12-16 21:51 ` Jameson Lopp
2015-12-16 22:29 ` Matt Corallo
2015-12-16 22:32 ` Matt Corallo
2015-12-17 2:21 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-12-17 2:44 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-12-17 2:58 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-12-17 3:48 ` Adam Back
2015-12-17 5:32 ` jl2012
2015-12-17 7:54 ` Corey Haddad
2015-12-17 13:09 ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-17 15:51 ` sickpig
2015-12-17 17:55 ` Anthony Towns
2015-12-18 10:01 ` sickpig
2015-12-19 7:50 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-12-19 23:03 ` Dave Scotese
2015-12-17 9:33 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-12-17 10:00 ` jl2012 [this message]
2015-12-17 10:57 ` Anthony Towns
2015-12-17 6:14 ` Marcel Jamin
2015-12-16 20:59 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-12-16 21:27 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-12-16 21:36 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-12-16 22:09 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-12-16 22:10 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-12-17 18:27 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-12-17 18:46 ` jl2012
2015-12-17 18:52 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-12-17 21:18 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-12-17 21:31 ` Adam Back
2015-12-17 3:52 ` Anthony Towns
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=18f0e80b0a55272a61d547f59efc6c9d@xbt.hk \
--to=jl2012@xbt$(echo .)hk \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=mark@friedenbach$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox