Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB941DD0 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:00:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from s47.web-hosting.com (s47.web-hosting.com [199.188.200.16]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6837B190 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:00:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:60886 helo=server47.web-hosting.com) by server47.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1a9VMH-00216v-0S; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 05:00:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 05:00:24 -0500 From: jl2012 To: Mark Friedenbach In-Reply-To: References: <49257841-66C8-4EF7-980B-73DC604CA591@mattcorallo.com> <9869fe48a4fc53fc355a35cead73fca2@xbt.hk> Message-ID: <18f0e80b0a55272a61d547f59efc6c9d@xbt.hk> X-Sender: jl2012@xbt.hk User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.5 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server47.web-hosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.linuxfoundation.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - xbt.hk X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server47.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: jl2012@xbt.hk X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 12:29:52 +0000 Cc: Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness in the context of Scaling Bitcoin 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: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:00:42 -0000 I know my reply is a long one but please read before you hit send. I have 2 proposals: fast BIP102 + slow SWSF and fast SWSF only. I guess no one here is arguing for not doing segwit; and it is on the top of my wish list. My main argument (maybe also Jeff's) is that segwit is too complicated and may not be a viable short term solution (with the reasons I listed that I don't want to repeat) And also I don't agree with you that BIP102 is *strictly* inferior than segwit. We never had a complex softfork like segwit, but we did have a successful simple hardfork (BIP50), and BIP102 is very simple. (Details in my last post. I'm not going to repeat) Mark Friedenbach 於 2015-12-17 04:33 寫到: > There are many reasons to support segwit beyond it being a soft-fork. > For example: > > * the limitation of non-witness data to no more than 1MB makes the > quadratic scaling costs in large transaction validation no worse than > they currently are; > * redeem scripts in witness use a more accurate cost accounting than > non-witness data (further improvements to this beyond what Pieter has > implemented are possible); and > * segwit provides features (e.g. opt-in malleability protection) which > are required by higher-level scaling solutions. > > With that in mind I really don't understand the viewpoint that it > would be better to engage a strictly inferior proposal such as a > simple adjustment of the block size to 2MB.