1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
|
Return-Path: <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB941DD0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <jl2012@xbt.hk>)
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 <jl2012@xbt.hk>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-sMdp1+mcNZc_yfwx59EAwSkFUHekRrqcYXsuLVoCw=1A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADm_WcYWh5EnBCzQQVc04sf-0seh2zrmc+5dH8Z-Bo78jhPnfA@mail.gmail.com>
<49257841-66C8-4EF7-980B-73DC604CA591@mattcorallo.com>
<9869fe48a4fc53fc355a35cead73fca2@xbt.hk>
<CAOG=w-sMdp1+mcNZc_yfwx59EAwSkFUHekRrqcYXsuLVoCw=1A@mail.gmail.com>
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=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.
|
