{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-12-08\n📝 Original message:Thanks for laying out a road-map, Greg.\n\nI'll need to think about it some more, but just a couple of initial\nreactions:\n\nWhy segwitness as a soft fork? Stuffing the segwitness merkle tree in the\ncoinbase is messy and will just complicate consensus-critical code (as\nopposed to making the right side of the merkle tree in block.version=5\nblocks the segwitness data).\n\nIt will also make any segwitness fraud proofs significantly larger (merkle\npath versus  merkle path to coinbase transactions, plus ENTIRE coinbase\ntransaction, which might be quite large, plus merkle path up to root).\n\n\nWe also need to fix the O(n^2) sighash problem as an additional BIP for ANY\nblocksize increase. That also argues for a hard fork-- it is much easier to\nfix it correctly and simplify the consensus code than to continue to apply\nband-aid fixes on top of something fundamentally broken.\n\n\nSegwitness will require a hard or soft-fork rollout, then a significant\nfraction of the transaction-producing wallets to upgrade and start\nsupporting segwitness-style transactions.  I think it will be much quicker\nthan the P2SH rollout, because the biggest transaction producers have a\nstrong motivation to lower their fees, and it won't require a new type of\nbitcoin address to fund wallets.  But it still feels like it'll be six\nmonths to a year at the earliest before any relief from the current\nproblems we're seeing from blocks filling up.\n\nSegwitness will make the current bottleneck (block propagation) a little\nworse in the short term, because of the extra fraud-proof data.  Benefits\nwell worth the costs.\n\n------------------\n\nI think a barrier to quickly getting consensus might be a fundamental\ndifference of opinion on this:\n   \"Even without them I believe we’ll be in an acceptable position with\nrespect to capacity in the near term\"\n\nThe heaviest users of the Bitcoin network (businesses who generate tens of\nthousands of transactions per day on behalf of their customers) would\nstrongly disgree; the current state of affairs is NOT acceptable to them.\n\n\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151208/386ffdbc/attachment.html\u003e"}