From: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail•com>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segwit2Mb - combined soft/hard fork - Request For Comments
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:42:19 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKzdR-qYjK0WHL51x4wJGpBuqjUu-Q8nBEPcLfj_qao=b-ZzaA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMztpmcC_rv_oKYn_jRhLzx2FbtxgPUshcPDJpQVZYBcJzw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2143 bytes --]
The 95% miner signaling is important to prevent two Bitcoin forks, such as
what happened with Ethereum HF and Ethereum Classic.
Bitcoin has a very slow difficulty re-targeting algorithm. A fork that has
just 95% miner support will initially (for 2016 blocks) be 5% slower (an
average block every 10 minutes and 30 seconds). The transaction capacity of
the new Bitcoin protocol is reduced only 5%.
However the chain with 5% if the hashing power not only has a 20x capacity
reduction, but confirms transactions in 20x more time. So the mempool will
grow 400 times. It must be noted that fees increased 10x from the moment
blocks were half full, to the moment blocks became saturated. I'm sure no
Bitcoin (pre-fork) user will be willing to pay 100x times the transaction
fees to use such a slow and insecure network.
So a 6-block confirmation will take 20 hours in the original chain and the
original chain will be in this almost useless slow state for an average of
2016 blocks, or 280 days.
If the original blockchain hard-forks to re-adjust the difficulty, then it
will just represent an alt-coin having 5% of Bitcoin community, and it
can't affect Bitcoin (the segwit2mb fork).
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail•com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> The hard-fork is conditional to 95% of the hashing power has approved the
>> segwit2mb soft-fork and the segwit soft-fork has been activated (which
>> should occur 2016 blocks after its lock-in time)
>>
>
> Miners signalling they have upgraded by flipping a bit in the nVersion
> field has little relevance in a hard fork. If 100% of the hash power
> indicates they are running this proposal, but the nodes don't upgrade, what
> will happen?
>
> For the record, I actually talk a lot about hard forks with various
> developers and am very interested in the research that Johnson in
> particular is pioneering. However, I have failed to understand your point
> about 95% miner signalling in relation to a hard fork, so I am eagerly
> awaiting your explanation.
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2909 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-06 20:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-31 21:09 Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-03-31 21:18 ` Matt Corallo
2017-03-31 21:22 ` praxeology_guy
2017-03-31 21:50 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-03-31 21:22 ` Matt Corallo
2017-03-31 22:13 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-04-01 3:03 ` Samson Mow
2017-04-01 3:35 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-06-02 20:04 ` Erik Aronesty
2017-04-01 6:55 ` Jared Lee Richardson
2017-04-01 11:44 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-04-01 12:33 ` Jorge Timón
2017-04-01 13:15 ` Natanael
2017-04-01 14:07 ` Jorge Timón
[not found] ` <CAAt2M1_gDzEuDLSvVsJARvdCAtUyM3Yuu7TT25sbm3L-Zi6+0Q@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAAt2M18=Tjw+05QCv6G7Abv=idB6ONgU9xvtrR=fn731452_mg@mail.gmail.com>
2017-04-01 15:34 ` Natanael
2017-04-02 4:57 ` Jorge Timón
2017-04-02 10:03 ` Natanael
2017-04-02 11:43 ` Jorge Timón
2017-06-02 20:04 ` Erik Aronesty
2017-06-02 21:51 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-06-03 0:53 ` Erik Aronesty
2017-06-03 2:03 ` Oliver Petruzel
2017-06-03 21:05 ` Oliver Petruzel
2017-04-03 14:40 ` Btc Drak
2017-04-06 2:27 ` Erik Aronesty
2017-04-06 20:58 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-04-06 20:42 ` Sergio Demian Lerner [this message]
2017-04-06 21:03 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-04-06 22:29 ` Aymeric Vitte
2017-06-02 12:29 ` R E Broadley
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='CAKzdR-qYjK0WHL51x4wJGpBuqjUu-Q8nBEPcLfj_qao=b-ZzaA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=sergio.d.lerner@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=btcdrak@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