MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMztpmcC_rv_oKYn_jRhLzx2FbtxgPUshcPDJpQVZYBcJzw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKzdR-oN6tGvGSb04_awCf=Jsf3wgKJN5xUhCr8G2D2W9YgJww@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADJgMztpmcC_rv_oKYn_jRhLzx2FbtxgPUshcPDJpQVZYBcJzw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:42:19 -0300
Message-ID: <CAKzdR-qYjK0WHL51x4wJGpBuqjUu-Q8nBEPcLfj_qao=b-ZzaA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1147b01ef7b169054c858df5
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segwit2Mb - combined soft/hard fork - Request For
	Comments
Precedence: list

--001a1147b01ef7b169054c858df5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

The 95% miner signaling is important to prevent two Bitcoin forks, such as
what happened with Ethereum HF and Ethereum Classic.

Bitcoin has a very slow difficulty re-targeting algorithm. A fork that has
just 95% miner support will initially (for 2016 blocks) be 5% slower (an
average block every 10 minutes and 30 seconds). The transaction capacity of
the new Bitcoin protocol is reduced only 5%.
However the chain with 5% if the hashing power not only has a 20x capacity
reduction, but confirms transactions in 20x more time. So the mempool will
grow 400 times. It must be noted that fees increased 10x from the moment
blocks were half full, to the moment blocks became saturated. I'm sure no
Bitcoin (pre-fork) user will be willing to pay 100x times the transaction
fees to use such a slow and insecure network.

So a 6-block confirmation will take 20 hours in the original chain and the
original chain will be in this almost useless slow state for an average of
2016 blocks, or 280 days.
If the original blockchain hard-forks to re-adjust the difficulty, then it
will just represent an alt-coin having 5% of Bitcoin community, and it
can't affect Bitcoin (the segwit2mb fork).


On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> The hard-fork is conditional to 95% of the hashing power has approved the
>> segwit2mb soft-fork and the segwit soft-fork has been activated (which
>> should occur 2016 blocks after its lock-in time)
>>
>
> Miners signalling they have upgraded by flipping a bit in the nVersion
> field has little relevance in a hard fork. If 100% of the hash power
> indicates they are running this proposal, but the nodes don't upgrade, what
> will happen?
>
> For the record, I actually talk a lot about hard forks with various
> developers and am very interested in the research that Johnson in
> particular is pioneering. However, I have failed to understand your point
> about 95% miner signalling in relation to a hard fork, so I am eagerly
> awaiting your explanation.
>

--001a1147b01ef7b169054c858df5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>The 95% miner signaling is important to prevent two B=
itcoin forks, such as what happened with Ethereum HF and Ethereum Classic.<=
/div><div><br></div>Bitcoin has a very slow difficulty re-targeting algorit=
hm. A fork that has just 95% miner support will initially (for 2016 blocks)=
 be 5% slower (an average block every 10 minutes and 30 seconds). The trans=
action capacity of the new Bitcoin protocol is reduced only 5%.=C2=A0<div>H=
owever the chain with 5% if the hashing power not only has a 20x capacity r=
eduction, but confirms transactions in 20x more time. So the mempool will g=
row 400 times. It must be noted that fees increased 10x from the moment blo=
cks were half full, to the moment blocks became saturated. I&#39;m sure no =
Bitcoin (pre-fork) user will be willing to pay 100x times the transaction f=
ees to use such a slow and insecure network.</div><div><br></div><div>So a =
6-block confirmation will take 20 hours in the original chain and the origi=
nal chain will be in this almost useless slow state for an average of 2016 =
blocks, or 280 days.=C2=A0<div>If the original blockchain hard-forks to re-=
adjust the difficulty, then it will just represent an alt-coin having 5% of=
 Bitcoin community, and it can&#39;t affect Bitcoin (the segwit2mb fork).</=
div><div><br></div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D=
"gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Btc Drak <span dir=3D"ltr">&=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:btcdrak@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">btcdrak@gmail.com=
</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin=
:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><=
div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span class=3D"">On Fr=
i, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <span dir=
=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targe=
t=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrot=
e:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>The hard-fork is=
 conditional to 95% of the hashing power has approved the segwit2mb soft-fo=
rk and the segwit soft-fork has been activated (which should occur 2016 blo=
cks after its lock-in time)</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><=
div>Miners signalling they have upgraded by flipping a bit in the nVersion =
field has little relevance in a hard fork. If 100% of the hash power indica=
tes they are running this proposal, but the nodes don&#39;t upgrade, what w=
ill happen?<br></div><div><br></div><div>For the record, I actually talk a =
lot about hard forks with various developers and am very interested in the =
research that Johnson in particular is pioneering. However, I have failed t=
o understand your point about 95% miner signalling in relation to a hard fo=
rk, so I am eagerly awaiting your explanation.</div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a1147b01ef7b169054c858df5--