From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 140BAF0F for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 08:07:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (cerulean.erisian.com.au [106.187.51.212]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60179108 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 08:07:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from aj@azure.erisian.com.au (helo=sapphire.erisian.com.au) by azure.erisian.com.au with esmtpsa (Exim 4.84 #2 (Debian)) id 1aAvVY-0000rv-4f for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:07:53 +1000 Received: by sapphire.erisian.com.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:07:47 +1000 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:07:47 +1000 From: Anthony Towns To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Message-ID: <20151221080747.GA24839@sapphire.erisian.com.au> References: <20151208110752.GA31180@amethyst.visucore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Score-int: -18 X-Spam-Bar: - X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system. X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 08:07:56 -0000 On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:21:55AM +0000, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev < > > So I'd like to ask the community that we work towards this plan, as it > > allows to make progress without being forced to make a possibly divisive > > choice for one hardfork or another yet. > Thank you for saying this. I also think the plan is solid and delivers > multiple benefits without being contentious. The number of wins are so > numerous, it's frankly a no-brainer. +1's are off-topic, but... +1. My impression is that each of libsecp256k1, versionbits, segregated witness, IBLT, weak blocks, and OP_CSV have been demonstrated to be significant improvements that are implementable, and don't introduce any new attacks or risks [0]. There's some freaking awesome engineering that's gone into all of those. > I guess the next step for segwit is a BIP and deployment on a testnet? I think the following proposed features are as yet missing from Pieter's segwit branch, and I'm guessing patches for them would be appreciated: - enforcing the proposed base+witness/4 < 1MB calculation - applying limits to sigops seen in witness signatures I guess there might be other things that still need to be implemented as well (and presumably bugs of course)? I think I'm convinced that the proposed plan is the best approach (as opposed to separate base<1MB, witness<3MB limits, or done as a hard fork, or without committing to a merkle head for the witnesses, eg), though. jl2012 already pointed to a draft segwit BIP in another thread, repeated here though: https://github.com/jl2012/bips/blob/segwit/bip-segwit.mediawiki Cheers, aj (hoping that was enough content after the +1 to not get modded ;) [0] I'm still not persuaded that even a small increase in blocksize doesn't introduce unacceptable risks (frankly, I'm not entirely persuaded the *current* limits don't have unacceptable risk) and that frustrates me no end. But I guess (even after six months of reading arguments about it!) I'm equally unpersuaded that there's actually more to the intense desire for more blocksize is anything other than fear/uncertainty/doubt mixed with a desire for transactions to be effectively free, rather than costing even a few cents each... So, personally, since the above doesn't really resolve that quandry for me, it doesn't really resolve the blocksize debate for me either. YMMV.