<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1xddusuj8cyeqaqalq0zklafvdgr26pt32t0tvquw5mmwwwm3dehsqlkyw0

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsrxk7gwfruzvswswls83t075kx5p4dq4c49h4kqw82dah88dckumcpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgp9h9a3

Publishing to

relay.primal.net

Last Notes

2023-06-07 20:00:56 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2017-05-08
📝 Original message:Sergio,
I'm not sure what the data you present has to do with the discount. A 75%
discount prevents witness spam precisely because it is 75%, nothing more.
The current usage simply gives a guideline on how much capacity is gained
through a particular discount. With the data you show, it would imply that
those blocks, with SegWit used where possible, would result in blocks of
~1.8MB.
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I have processed 1000 blocks starting from Block #461653.
>
> I computed several metrics, including the supposed size of witness data
> and non-witness data (onchain), assuming all P2SH inputs/outputs are
> converted to P2PWSH and all P2PKH inputs/outputs are converted to P2WPKH.
>
> This takes into account that other types of transactions will not be
> modified by Segwit (e.g. OP_RETURN outputs, or P2PK). This analysis doesn't
> take into account that LN transactions may affect the current state,
> increasing the segwit/nosegwit ratio.
>
> Among a lot of information, I've got the following real world results...
>
> acMainChainSpace =352608924
> acSegwitSpace =599400403
> Ratio segwit/nosegwit=1.6999
>
> This implies that the 75% that discount is not the best option to prevent
> witness spam in a block of 4 MB, as stated in https://segwit.org/why-a-
> discount-factor-of-4-why-not-2-or-8-bbcebe91721e.
>
> The non-witness data weight factor should not be 4 but 2.35. The closest
> integer value is 2, which leads to a 50% witness discount.
>
> The Bitcoinj source code is available for anyone to review. I encourage
> anyone to re-compute this with another utility to cross-check. Maybe
> Antoine Le Calvez (p2sh.info) would like to double-check.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170508/eda3ff72/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 19:58:13 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2017-03-28
📝 Original message:His demand (not suggestion) allows it without any safeguards.
>This patch must be in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.
That is not a suggestion.
Wang - still waiting on the details of this meeting. In the spirit of
openness, I think you ought to share with the community what kind of secret
meetings are happening.
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 March 2017 21:56:49 CEST Paul Iverson via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > It is clear that, spam aside, blocks are getting full and we need
> increase
> > them soon. What I don't like about your proposal is it forces all node
> > operators to implicitly accept larger blocks in 2020, even maybe against
> > their will. 32 MB blocks might result in a loss of decentralization, and
> > it might be too difficult to coordinate for small blocks before it's too
> > late.
>
> The suggestion was not to produce 32MB blocks, so your fear here is
> unfounded.
>
> --
> Tom Zander
> Blog: https://zander.github.io
> Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170328/a84076b1/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 19:58:08 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2017-03-28
📝 Original message:Juan,
I suggest you take a look at this paper:
http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf It may help you form
opinions based in science rather than what appears to be nothing more than
a hunch. It shows that even 4MB is unsafe. SegWit provides up to this
limit.
8MB is most definitely not safe today.
Whether it is unsafe or impossible is the topic, since Wang Chun proposed
making the block size limit 32MiB.
Wang Chun,
Can you specify what meeting you are talking about? You seem to have not
replied on that point. Who were the participants and what was the purpose
of this meeting?
-Alphonse
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Juan Garavaglia <jg at 112bit.com> wrote:
> Alphonse,
>
>
>
> In my opinion if 1MB limit was ok in 2010, 8MB limit is ok on 2016 and
> 32MB limit valid in next halving, from network, storage and CPU perspective
> or 1MB was too high in 2010 what is possible or 1MB is to low today.
>
>
>
> If is unsafe or impossible to raise the blocksize is a different topic.
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Juan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org [mailto:
> bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org] *On Behalf Of *Alphonse
> Pace via bitcoin-dev
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:24 PM
> *To:* Wang Chun <1240902 at gmail.com>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
>
>
>
> What meeting are you referring to? Who were the participants?
>
>
>
> Removing the limit but relying on the p2p protocol is not really a true
> 32MiB limit, but a limit of whatever transport methods provide. This can
> lead to differing consensus if alternative layers for relaying are used.
> What you seem to be asking for is an unbound block size (or at least
> determined by whatever miners produce). This has the possibility (and even
> likelihood) of removing many participants from the network, including many
> small miners.
>
>
>
> 32MB in less than 3 years also appears to be far beyond limits of safety
> which are known to exist far sooner, and we cannot expect hardware and
> networking layers to improve by those amounts in that time.
>
>
>
> It also seems like it would be much better to wait until SegWit activates
> in order to truly measure the effects on the network from this increased
> capacity before committing to any additional increases.
>
>
>
> -Alphonse
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I've proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Consensus
> but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than
> one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I would
> post this here again for comment.
>
> The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should
> be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.
>
> Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its
> limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to
> remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in
> the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block
> halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is
> the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be
> in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.
>
> With this patch in core's next release, Bitcoin works just as before,
> no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there
> will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and
> exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three
> years.
>
> We don't yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size
> limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like
> BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so
> on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core's
> release, they all become soft fork. We'll have enough time to discuss
> all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we
> choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it
> from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork.
>
> Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170328/70199439/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 19:58:01 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2017-03-28
📝 Original message:What meeting are you referring to? Who were the participants?
Removing the limit but relying on the p2p protocol is not really a true
32MiB limit, but a limit of whatever transport methods provide. This can
lead to differing consensus if alternative layers for relaying are used.
What you seem to be asking for is an unbound block size (or at least
determined by whatever miners produce). This has the possibility (and even
likelihood) of removing many participants from the network, including many
small miners.
32MB in less than 3 years also appears to be far beyond limits of safety
which are known to exist far sooner, and we cannot expect hardware and
networking layers to improve by those amounts in that time.
It also seems like it would be much better to wait until SegWit activates
in order to truly measure the effects on the network from this increased
capacity before committing to any additional increases.
-Alphonse
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I've proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Consensus
> but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than
> one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I would
> post this here again for comment.
>
> The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should
> be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.
>
> Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its
> limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to
> remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in
> the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block
> halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is
> the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be
> in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.
>
> With this patch in core's next release, Bitcoin works just as before,
> no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there
> will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and
> exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three
> years.
>
> We don't yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size
> limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like
> BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so
> on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core's
> release, they all become soft fork. We'll have enough time to discuss
> all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we
> choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it
> from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork.
>
> Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170328/ce012e4a/attachment.html>