Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compatibility-Oriented Omnibus Proposal

From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
To: Oliver Petruzel <opetruzel@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	CalvinRechner <calvinrechner@protonmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compatibility-Oriented Omnibus Proposal
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 11:51:17 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJowKg+o87tT_5vc5cB4t5nPU-LtYYidN1JWKxDBtwNZoYEdoQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALhpmH3sUxa=MYtCdNMGO3AMGgmT=Tc2kcJzzpoY84syjgtP_A@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2102 bytes --]

- We now are witnessing this... COOP vs LukeJr COOP, vs BIP148 vs BIP149 vs
BIP91 ... how many are there?:

https://xkcd.com/927

- If some miners and exchanges collude to enact a rapid 2MB+Segwit hard
fork coin... and calling it "bitcoin" on major exchanges this could swiftly
fragment the network.

- If this fork fails to contain an ASICBOOST defense, then this is
essentially an example of core failing to appropriately respond to the CVE
security vulnerability in time.

- A swift BIP148 release in core seems necessary to defend against this.
I am no longer in favor of adding a BIP148 option with default "false"..
I think it should be merged in...enabled, and released ASAP to defend
against these attacks.

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Oliver Petruzel via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> >>if the community wishes to adopt (by unanimous consensus) a 2 MB block
> size hardfork, this is probably the best way to do it right now... Legacy
> Bitcoin transactions are given the witness discount, and a block size limit
> of 2 MB is imposed.<<
>
>
> The above decision may quickly become very controversial. I don't think it's
> what most users had/have in mind when they discuss a "2MB+SegWit" solution.
>
> With the current 1MB+SegWit, testing has shown us that normal usage
> results in ~2 or 2.1MB blocks.
>
> I think most users will expect a linear increase when Base Size is
> increased to 2000000 bytes and Total Weight is increased to 8000000 bytes.
> With normal usage, the expected results would then be ~4 or 4.2MB blocks.
>
> Am I missing something here, or does Luke's suggested 2MB cap completely
> nullify that expected linear increase? If so, why? What's the logic behind
> this decision?
>
> I'd love to be armed with a good answer should my colleagues ask me the
> same obvious question, so thank you ahead of time!
>
> Respectfully,
> Oliver Petruzel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4254 bytes --]