6 ms·

If Eric was serious about this he would have targeted this post at chinese miners who are stalling on activating segwit (which is a 2x blocksize increase and th

If Eric was serious about this he would have targeted this post at chinese miners who are stalling on activating segwit (which is a 2x blocksize increase and the foundation for instant & nearly free txs via the Lightning Network).

colordrops 10y ago
The Lightning Network is not bitcoin. The people who are fighting against block size increase are the same people pushing segwit. While there is nothing inherently wrong with segwit and the Lightning Network, they are ignoring the most important improvement to Bitcoin itself, which would be a pure block size increase.
- hnolable 10y ago
  https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/#block-capacitysize-increase https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/#block...
- nadaviv 10y ago
  But SegWit is a block size increase. It allows twice as many on-chain transactions by making the blocks twice as big. This "SegWit vs block-size increase" talk makes no sense to me. https://segwit.org/is-segwit-a-block-size-increase-705df6a8731d https://segwit.org/is-segwit-a-block-size-increase-705df6a87...
  - colordrops 10y ago
    The block size increase with segwit is marginal and a side effect. It's a complicated feature that is meant for purposes other than block size increase. Don't obfuscate the issue. I'm talking about a simple tweaking of a parameter to increase block size.
    - nadaviv 10y ago
      > The block size increase with segwit is marginal It's not marginal. According to the mix of current transactions on the bitcoin network, SegWit gives us an effective block size of 2.1MB. Over 2 times more transactions compared to today, which is more than what Bitcoin Classic was pushing for until not too long ago. https://www.weusecoins.com/eli-segwit/ https://www.weusecoins.com/eli-segwit/ https://segwit.org/is-segwit-a-block-size-increase-705df6a8731d https://segwit.org/is-segwit-a-block-size-increase-705df6a87... > and a side effect. Indeed it is! The main goal of SegWit is fixing the malleability problem, everything else is an bonus. The other bonuses are pretty awesome themselves, too: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ > I'm talking about a simple tweaking of a parameter to increase block size. A "simple" block-size increase requires an hard-fork, which is anything but simple. Hardforks requires a network-wide coordinated upgrade where everyone updates on the same time, at the risk of a currency split and old nodes being open to attacks if not everyone upgrades in time. Hardforks are highly risky and very very slow to deploy safely. I recently presented some slides on this topic, the relevant part starts here: https://www.docdroid.net/TouvFPl/embassy-future-politics-feb2017.pdf.html#page=3 https://www.docdroid.net/TouvFPl/embassy-future-politics-feb... The same slides, shown as a summary image: https://twitter.com/TraceMayer/status/829558034351398916 https://twitter.com/TraceMayer/status/829558034351398916
mhluongo 10y ago
Erm, targeted at? You mean he would have, what, written it in Chinese? Note he said most businesses are looking for Segwit activation + a hard fork blocksize increase (ours included). The "Chinese miners" have expressed that desire as well. Segwit is stalling because it's not what the market is asking for.
- hnolable 10y ago
  Segwit requires 95% of miners to activate. Currently about 75% of hash power is controlled by a group of chinese miners/pools. This is about the % of hashing power that is missing for Segwit to activate.
  - mhluongo 10y ago
    Aware of how Segwit activation works, thanks. I'm speaking to the miners' motivations. They've been asking for a simple blocksize increase for quite some time. See the HK agreement if you don't get the politics.
    - hnolable 10y ago
      Yes that's the issue here, the miners are playing politics by trying to flex their power. But no one is willing to play petty games. There's an obvious win for everyone sitting on the table ready to go. Political games will be ignored.
      - mhluongo 10y ago
        The Core devs signed an agreement with these miners a year ago in Hong Kong, and the agreement was broken. Here are the consequences. Clearly, politics won't be ignored- or Segwit would be on track for activation.
        hnolable 10y ago
        The part you're missing is that Bitcoin is totally fine if it never changed from how it is today. Anonymity will come via Tumblebit. Lightning network can already work even without segwit. Segwit never getting activated may even be a good thing. It will show everyone that Bitcoin has crystalized and can never be changed via petty human emotion. This was always Bitcoin's true selling point and we may be about to demonstrate it. So yes, politics can and will be ignored.
pmorici 10y ago
Segwit is not a 2x block size increase. That is marketing spin that Blockstream started spreading to try and fool people into supporting their agenda w/o having to compromise and raise the block size. Segwit does _not_ increase the block size in the sense that people are discussing and in some cases it might even make the transaction throughput much worse than the current system. The whole reason people want bigger blocks is for higher transaction throughput on-chain. Segwit doesn't deliver that. https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5f507l/core_is_the_new_big_blocker_37mb_mined_on_testnet/dahjg2w/ https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5f507l/core_is_the_...
- hnolable 10y ago
  You can play semantical games but segwit gives about 2x onchain capacity. And the only thing holding it up is a group of chinese miners/pools. Anyone truly wanting more onchain capacity should be engaging those miners/pools. Of course that's not really what people bitching about tx fees want.
  - pmorici 10y ago
    That's my point exactly people calling segwit a block size increase are playing semantic games. Miners and devs met a year ago and agreed on a path forward of segwit+hardfork blocksize increase to 2MB. Now they are trying to get people to activate segwit w/o a 2mb increase. It's not a mystery why this is happening and it isn't just Chinese miners that oppose it.
    - hnolable 10y ago
      You admitted that "The whole reason people want bigger blocks is for higher transaction throughput on-chain." And said that "Segwit doesn't deliver that". Segwit delivers that.
      - pmorici 10y ago
        The link I provided in my first response to you clearly shows that segwit can result in much lower transaction throughput.
lawn 10y ago
> for instant & nearly free txs via the Lightning Network It's amazing we're putting all our hopes on a technology best labeled as vaporware. You make it out like it's readily available but the fundamental problem of decentralized routing hasn't been solved and it may even be unsolvable. The simple fact is that blockstream is pushing segwit precisely for it being a necessity for lightning network, not because it's a good thing for bitcoin. The correct solution would have been a blocksize increase long ago but the same people supporting segwit has been actively blocking all attempts at a blocksize increase previously. Why the sudden change? As another comment said, "Follow the money, it's not baffling at all."
- codingmyway 10y ago
  This political argument that it's all just a plot by Blockstream is what is causing the division where the technical benefits of segwit are clear to anybody who knows what they are talking about. As soon as it became about people and BS conspiracies instead of technical rational solutions it was only going to end up in slagging match.
  - lawn 10y ago
    You're dodging my technical argument well yourself. Segwit implemented as a soft fork isn't clearly full of benefits. But it seems you're just appealing to authority.
    - codingmyway 10y ago
      I didn't write the and test code myself so you can label that as appealing to authority all you like but I have looked into it and understand the benefits of moving the witness to a subtree of the merkle root so that it can be dropped when it is no longer needed as well as the other changes that are included in the update that allow further soft fork changes enough to see the benefits. I don't just accept someone saying it is good or bad. Can you explain why such an obvious refactor that is backward and forward compatible isn't a clear benefit? No it isn't sufficient and won't instantly increase the transaction throughput but the the arguments against it that I've heard are weak and almost all political and could also be argued as appeal to a different authority. There are two visions of what people see as scaling and are pushing for, on-chain and off-chain. Segwit helps both so being against it can only be politically motivated.

colordrops 10y ago

The Lightning Network is not bitcoin. The people who are fighting against block size increase are the same people pushing segwit. While there is nothing inherently wrong with segwit and the Lightning Network, they are ignoring the most important improvement to Bitcoin itself, which would be a pure block size increase.

hnolable 10y ago
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/#block-capacitysize-increase https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/#block...
nadaviv 10y ago
But SegWit is a block size increase. It allows twice as many on-chain transactions by making the blocks twice as big. This "SegWit vs block-size increase" talk makes no sense to me. https://segwit.org/is-segwit-a-block-size-increase-705df6a8731d https://segwit.org/is-segwit-a-block-size-increase-705df6a87...
- colordrops 10y ago
  The block size increase with segwit is marginal and a side effect. It's a complicated feature that is meant for purposes other than block size increase. Don't obfuscate the issue. I'm talking about a simple tweaking of a parameter to increase block size.
  - nadaviv 10y ago
    > The block size increase with segwit is marginal It's not marginal. According to the mix of current transactions on the bitcoin network, SegWit gives us an effective block size of 2.1MB. Over 2 times more transactions compared to today, which is more than what Bitcoin Classic was pushing for until not too long ago. https://www.weusecoins.com/eli-segwit/ https://www.weusecoins.com/eli-segwit/ https://segwit.org/is-segwit-a-block-size-increase-705df6a8731d https://segwit.org/is-segwit-a-block-size-increase-705df6a87... > and a side effect. Indeed it is! The main goal of SegWit is fixing the malleability problem, everything else is an bonus. The other bonuses are pretty awesome themselves, too: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ > I'm talking about a simple tweaking of a parameter to increase block size. A "simple" block-size increase requires an hard-fork, which is anything but simple. Hardforks requires a network-wide coordinated upgrade where everyone updates on the same time, at the risk of a currency split and old nodes being open to attacks if not everyone upgrades in time. Hardforks are highly risky and very very slow to deploy safely. I recently presented some slides on this topic, the relevant part starts here: https://www.docdroid.net/TouvFPl/embassy-future-politics-feb2017.pdf.html#page=3 https://www.docdroid.net/TouvFPl/embassy-future-politics-feb... The same slides, shown as a summary image: https://twitter.com/TraceMayer/status/829558034351398916 https://twitter.com/TraceMayer/status/829558034351398916

mhluongo 10y ago

Erm, targeted at? You mean he would have, what, written it in Chinese? Note he said most businesses are looking for Segwit activation + a hard fork blocksize increase (ours included). The "Chinese miners" have expressed that desire as well. Segwit is stalling because it's not what the market is asking for.

hnolable 10y ago
Segwit requires 95% of miners to activate. Currently about 75% of hash power is controlled by a group of chinese miners/pools. This is about the % of hashing power that is missing for Segwit to activate.
- mhluongo 10y ago
  Aware of how Segwit activation works, thanks. I'm speaking to the miners' motivations. They've been asking for a simple blocksize increase for quite some time. See the HK agreement if you don't get the politics.
  - hnolable 10y ago
    Yes that's the issue here, the miners are playing politics by trying to flex their power. But no one is willing to play petty games. There's an obvious win for everyone sitting on the table ready to go. Political games will be ignored.
    - mhluongo 10y ago
      The Core devs signed an agreement with these miners a year ago in Hong Kong, and the agreement was broken. Here are the consequences. Clearly, politics won't be ignored- or Segwit would be on track for activation.
      - hnolable 10y ago
        The part you're missing is that Bitcoin is totally fine if it never changed from how it is today. Anonymity will come via Tumblebit. Lightning network can already work even without segwit. Segwit never getting activated may even be a good thing. It will show everyone that Bitcoin has crystalized and can never be changed via petty human emotion. This was always Bitcoin's true selling point and we may be about to demonstrate it. So yes, politics can and will be ignored.

pmorici 10y ago

Segwit is not a 2x block size increase. That is marketing spin that Blockstream started spreading to try and fool people into supporting their agenda w/o having to compromise and raise the block size. Segwit does _not_ increase the block size in the sense that people are discussing and in some cases it might even make the transaction throughput much worse than the current system. The whole reason people want bigger blocks is for higher transaction throughput on-chain. Segwit doesn't deliver that. https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5f507l/core_is_the_new_big_blocker_37mb_mined_on_testnet/dahjg2w/ https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5f507l/core_is_the_...

hnolable 10y ago
You can play semantical games but segwit gives about 2x onchain capacity. And the only thing holding it up is a group of chinese miners/pools. Anyone truly wanting more onchain capacity should be engaging those miners/pools. Of course that's not really what people bitching about tx fees want.
- pmorici 10y ago
  That's my point exactly people calling segwit a block size increase are playing semantic games. Miners and devs met a year ago and agreed on a path forward of segwit+hardfork blocksize increase to 2MB. Now they are trying to get people to activate segwit w/o a 2mb increase. It's not a mystery why this is happening and it isn't just Chinese miners that oppose it.
  - hnolable 10y ago
    You admitted that "The whole reason people want bigger blocks is for higher transaction throughput on-chain." And said that "Segwit doesn't deliver that". Segwit delivers that.
    - pmorici 10y ago
      The link I provided in my first response to you clearly shows that segwit can result in much lower transaction throughput.

lawn 10y ago

> for instant & nearly free txs via the Lightning Network It's amazing we're putting all our hopes on a technology best labeled as vaporware. You make it out like it's readily available but the fundamental problem of decentralized routing hasn't been solved and it may even be unsolvable. The simple fact is that blockstream is pushing segwit precisely for it being a necessity for lightning network, not because it's a good thing for bitcoin. The correct solution would have been a blocksize increase long ago but the same people supporting segwit has been actively blocking all attempts at a blocksize increase previously. Why the sudden change? As another comment said, "Follow the money, it's not baffling at all."

codingmyway 10y ago
This political argument that it's all just a plot by Blockstream is what is causing the division where the technical benefits of segwit are clear to anybody who knows what they are talking about. As soon as it became about people and BS conspiracies instead of technical rational solutions it was only going to end up in slagging match.
- lawn 10y ago
  You're dodging my technical argument well yourself. Segwit implemented as a soft fork isn't clearly full of benefits. But it seems you're just appealing to authority.
  - codingmyway 10y ago
    I didn't write the and test code myself so you can label that as appealing to authority all you like but I have looked into it and understand the benefits of moving the witness to a subtree of the merkle root so that it can be dropped when it is no longer needed as well as the other changes that are included in the update that allow further soft fork changes enough to see the benefits. I don't just accept someone saying it is good or bad. Can you explain why such an obvious refactor that is backward and forward compatible isn't a clear benefit? No it isn't sufficient and won't instantly increase the transaction throughput but the the arguments against it that I've heard are weak and almost all political and could also be argued as appeal to a different authority. There are two visions of what people see as scaling and are pushing for, on-chain and off-chain. Segwit helps both so being against it can only be politically motivated.