From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org,
Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 23:27:14 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201707072327.15901.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKzdR-qCmuj02yobAj9YDYq7Ed309z2VUaMtbL_i9vF3zkp5mw@mail.gmail.com>
> Maximum transaction size is kept, to maximize compatibility with current
> software and prevent algorithmic and data size DoS's.
IIRC, it is actually increased by ~81 bytes, and doesn't count witness data if
on Segwit transactions (so in effect, nearly 4 MB transactions are possible).
This probably doesn't make the hashing problem worse, however it should be
made clear in the BIP.
> Assuming the current transaction pattern is replicated in a 2 MB
> plain-sized block that is 100% filled with transactions, then the
> witness-serialized block would occupy 3.6 MB [1]. This is considered safe
> by many users, companies, miners and academics [2].
Citations do not support the claim.
> The plain block size is defined as the serialized block size without
> witness programs.
This is deceptive and meaningless. There is no reason to *ever* refer to the
size of the block serialised without witness programs. It is not a meaningful
number.
> Deploy a modified BIP91 to activate Segwit. The only modification is that
> the signal "segsignal" is replaced by "segwit2x".
What is modified here? "segsignal" does not appear in the BIP 91 protocol at
all...
> If segwit2x (BIP91 signal) activates at block N, then block N+12960
> activates a new plain block size limit of 2 MB (2,000,000 bytes). In this
> case, at block N+12960 a hard-fork occurs.
A "plain block size limit" of 2 MB would be a no-op. It would have literally
no effect whatsoever on the network rules.
Furthermore, this does not match what btc1/Segwit2x currently implements at
all. The actual implementation is: If Segwit (via deployment method) activates
at block N, then block N+12960 activates a new weight limit of 8M (which
corresponds to a size of up to 8,000,000 bytes).
> Any transaction with a non-witness serialized size exceeding 1,000,000 is
> invalid.
What is the rationale for excluding witness data from this measurement?
> In the short term, an increase is needed to continue to facilitate network
> growth, and buy time...
Actual network growth does not reflect a pattern that supports this claim.
> This reduces the fee pressure on users and companies creating on-chain
> transactions, matching market expectations and preventing further market
> disruption.
Larger block sizes is not likely to have a meaningful impact on fee pressure.
Any expectations that do not match the reality are merely misguided, and
should not be a basis for changing Bitcoin.
Luke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-07 23:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-07 22:25 Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-07-07 22:44 ` Matt Corallo
2017-07-07 23:25 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-07-07 23:22 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-07-13 3:10 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-07-13 3:19 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-07-07 23:27 ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
2017-07-07 23:38 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-07-08 6:30 ` Erik Aronesty
2017-07-08 13:28 ` Btc Drak
[not found] ` <A7FFF8F7-9806-44F1-B68F-F83C44893365@ob1.io>
2017-07-10 11:50 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-07-10 18:38 ` Jorge Timón
2017-07-12 8:15 ` Tom Zander
2017-07-12 12:38 ` Jonas Schnelli
2017-07-12 17:38 ` Jorge Timón
2017-07-13 19:19 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-07-13 19:48 ` Andrew Chow
2017-07-13 21:18 ` Charlie 'Charles' Shrem
2017-07-14 13:50 ` Erik Aronesty
2017-07-12 1:06 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-07-12 15:41 ` Aymeric Vitte
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=201707072327.15901.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=sergio.d.lerner@gmail$(echo .)com \
/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