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 18:03:12 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKzdR-qmhXH0ZaKTYP+6NE6vdzm0u5nfhgKXp9iLc=9ZdLWLZA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKzdR-qYjK0WHL51x4wJGpBuqjUu-Q8nBEPcLfj_qao=b-ZzaA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2541 bytes --]
Ups. My mistake: the mempool will not grow 400 times, the is no square
there.
I will initially grow 20 times. Multiplied by the number of times a
transaction may need to be replaced with one with higher fees. Maybe 50
times, but not 400.
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner <
sergio.d.lerner@gmail•com> wrote:
> 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: 3611 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-06 21:03 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
2017-04-06 21:03 ` Sergio Demian Lerner [this message]
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-qmhXH0ZaKTYP+6NE6vdzm0u5nfhgKXp9iLc=9ZdLWLZA@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