From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail•com>
To: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo•com>
Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness in the context of Scaling Bitcoin
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:21:22 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADm_WcYdAHP95mrxH0CjvxKaV12rXEdBXf-L5QtKHuBL1ndFaQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49257841-66C8-4EF7-980B-73DC604CA591@mattcorallo.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2401 bytes --]
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo•com>
wrote:
> A large part of your argument is that SW will take longer to deploy than a
> hard fork, but I completely disagree. Though I do not agree with some
> people claiming we can deploy SW significantly faster than a hard fork,
> once the code is ready (probably a six month affair) we can get it deployed
> very quickly. It's true the ecosystem may take some time to upgrade, but I
> see that as a feature, not a bug - we can build up some fee pressure with
> an immediate release valve available for people to use if they want to pay
> fewer fees.
>
That's taking a big risk. "Build up some fee pressure" is essentially
risking a Fee Event if uptake is slower than planned, or traffic is greater
than expected.
>
> On the other hand, a hard fork, while simpler for the ecosystem to upgrade
> to, is a 1-2 year affair (after the code is shipped, so at least 1.5-2.5
> from today if we all put off heads down and work). One thing that has
> concerned me greatly through this whole debate is how quickly people seem
> to think we can roll out a hard fork. Go look at the distribution of node
> versions on the network today and work backwards to get nearly every node
> upgraded... Even with a year between fork-version-release and
> fork-activation, we'd still kill a bunch of nodes and instead of reducing
> their security model, lead them to be outright robbed.
>
A hard fork will never achieve 100% There are many credible folks and
estimates who feel a May hard fork is reasonable and doable.
Further, hard forks restore the full trustless nature of the post-hard-fork
nodes. Soft forks continually erode that. That's why SW should come via
hard fork. The end result is more secure - 100% validation of witness
transactions.
If regular hard fork plans are proposed in public, many months in advance,
there is plenty of time for the community to react. Hard forks create a
more predictable market and environment for Users, and a more secure
network.
Further, even if you believe SW makes hard fork unnecessary, it is the
responsible thing to code and communicate to users the plan for a Fee Event
just in case SW uptake and extension block use does not match theoretical
projections of SW proponents.
Finally, SW does not eliminate and is orthogonal to Short Term Problem #1
(orig. email - drift into ECE)
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3037 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-17 2:21 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 [this message]
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
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=CADm_WcYdAHP95mrxH0CjvxKaV12rXEdBXf-L5QtKHuBL1ndFaQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jgarzik@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=lf-lists@mattcorallo$(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