Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
take a look at my bolded edits around an alternative reason why the SW discount has been constructed the way it has.
i've been puzzled as to why gmax et al have suddenly become ok with a 4MB block worth of SWSF data + witness when up to just a couple of months ago they were steadfast at 1MB blocksizes as a limiting bandwidth of the network. i think i finally understand. first, look closely at the original SW calculation quote from AJTowns which still applies:
The 4MB consensus limit could only be hit by having a single trivial
transaction using as little base data as possible, then a single huge
4MB witness. So people trying to abuse the system have 4x the blocksize
for 1 block's worth of fees, while people using it as intended only get
1.6x or 2x the blocksize... That seems kinda backwards.
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011869.html
let me try re-writing the above through the thought processes of a gmax by tweaking the same above paragraph:
The 4MB consensus limit could only behit approached by having a single trivial
as many complex multi-sig LN transactions using as little base data as possible, then asingle huge 4MB witness LN subsidy. So people trying to abuse promote the LN system have almost 4x the blocksize for 1 block's worth of fees, while people using it as intended for routine Bitcoin tx's only get 1.6x or 2x the blocksize... That seems kinda backwards, if you're interested in promoting the Bitcoin mainchain versus LN.
i've been puzzled as to why gmax et al have suddenly become ok with a 4MB block worth of SWSF data + witness when up to just a couple of months ago they were steadfast at 1MB blocksizes as a limiting bandwidth of the network. i think i finally understand. first, look closely at the original SW calculation quote from AJTowns which still applies:
The 4MB consensus limit could only be hit by having a single trivial
transaction using as little base data as possible, then a single huge
4MB witness. So people trying to abuse the system have 4x the blocksize
for 1 block's worth of fees, while people using it as intended only get
1.6x or 2x the blocksize... That seems kinda backwards.
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011869.html
let me try re-writing the above through the thought processes of a gmax by tweaking the same above paragraph:
The 4MB consensus limit could only be
as many complex multi-sig LN transactions using as little base data as possible, then a
Last edited:
imo, this is a
Last edited:
another interesting dynamic from AJ:
In particular, if you use as many p2pkh transactions as possible, you'd
have 800kB of base data plus 800kB of witness data, and for a block
filled with 2-of-2 multisig p2sh transactions, you'd hit the limit at
670kB of base data and 1.33MB of witness data.
note that the more the block is filled with multisig tx's (to be expected if LN takes off) the less space allowed for regular tx fees for miners (was 800kB now 670Kb). this is going in the wrong direction for miners.
note that the network will also be forced to pass around larger & larger blocks for lesser and lesser onchain gain consuming greater & greater bandwidth. this is all b/c LN sigs are much bigger and more complex.
@sickpig comments appreciated.
In particular, if you use as many p2pkh transactions as possible, you'd
have 800kB of base data plus 800kB of witness data, and for a block
filled with 2-of-2 multisig p2sh transactions, you'd hit the limit at
670kB of base data and 1.33MB of witness data.
note that the more the block is filled with multisig tx's (to be expected if LN takes off) the less space allowed for regular tx fees for miners (was 800kB now 670Kb). this is going in the wrong direction for miners.
note that the network will also be forced to pass around larger & larger blocks for lesser and lesser onchain gain consuming greater & greater bandwidth. this is all b/c LN sigs are much bigger and more complex.
@sickpig comments appreciated.
Last edited:
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
Yes. Diddling with the reward structure was an immediate red flag. They have built a complex structure of malfeasance.
One can only hope that the miners will not put up with it even if they do stick with core. Perhaps someone should release a patch that can be simply applied to the source.
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
I'm convinced that the weird unenforceable tx pricing policy they're going for in SFSW is a prelude to Flexcap, where they're going to make this and more part of the consensus layer.
YarkoL
Active Member
@YarkoL It is somewhat likely that Bitcoin ends up as a settlement layer and people just invest in Bitcoin like they do treasury bonds. But Bitcoin's going to eat the bankers lunch in that case. And no one is willingly going to transfer huge amounts of wealth to early Bitcoin adopters so that they can use Bitcoin as a settlement layer if they don't have too.
Bitcoin has to prove its worthy it has to take that piece of the pie. It does that by just doing what it's designed to do. Like gold before it, it was money first before gold devolved into a settlement commodity. Bitcoin will earn it's place at the table by being a good accessible money first.
Bitcoin needs to grow two or three orders of magnitude before it's ready to be the settlement layer candidate. It doesn't just happen by decree we need to make it happen, it's a grass roots movement from the bottom up, it rewards the risk takers who make it happen, the hard money advocates.
Bitcoin has to prove its worthy it has to take that piece of the pie. It does that by just doing what it's designed to do. Like gold before it, it was money first before gold devolved into a settlement commodity. Bitcoin will earn it's place at the table by being a good accessible money first.
Bitcoin needs to grow two or three orders of magnitude before it's ready to be the settlement layer candidate. It doesn't just happen by decree we need to make it happen, it's a grass roots movement from the bottom up, it rewards the risk takers who make it happen, the hard money advocates.
Last edited:
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
@YarkoL
That argument is so bad, it's not even wrong.
It's basically a fuzzy imprecise free-association trying to emotionally tie a certain position on blocksize to a certain unpalatable mindset, without actually attempting to analyze the fundamental money properties whatsoever.
That argument is so bad, it's not even wrong.
It's basically a fuzzy imprecise free-association trying to emotionally tie a certain position on blocksize to a certain unpalatable mindset, without actually attempting to analyze the fundamental money properties whatsoever.
the base line: the more "complex" the transaction the higher will be the ratio size(witness)/sitze(tx). On the other hand p2pkh txs will have a lower ratio.
Hence once SegWit will be active, all conditions equal, block space consumption will be skewed in favour of multisig txs.
In other words SegWit will change the economic rules of the game, Jeff Garzik say it quite clearly:
If the Banks want a settlement layer they will simply write one, possibly using blockchain code or maybe not. The banks are far, far more capable of building an efficient, designed-for-purpose block chain than Core developers, for example, are of writing a basically functional payments or settlement system.
It's amusing to see some Core developers mention they think Bitcoin is better as a settlement tool, when they have no experience and AFAIK no input on how one even functions.
It's amusing to see some Core developers mention they think Bitcoin is better as a settlement tool, when they have no experience and AFAIK no input on how one even functions.
and if the banks write a settlement layer that is closed, then that would require trust. Given that they all already trust each other (enough, at least, to settle) then why would they even need to change the current settlement system!?
I reckon the banks are just trying to EEE 'blockchain'
I reckon the banks are just trying to EEE 'blockchain'
Pretty drunk but felt I had to answer. How'd I do?
bumping up this post as it is related to the bank settlement layer thing. (bold added to the original)
Would you agree that my conclusions above are correct? That being SW is bad for the long term health of miners and network resources in terms of BW consumed because it encourages bigger block relays up to 4mb composed primarily of multi sig txs that will pay less in fees (1/4) than otherwise would be paid by a simple increase in the block size limit to 4mb filled with regular p2pkh txs that pay 4x the fees compared to the multi sigs?
[doublepost=1454501890,1454501038][/doublepost]
@albin is quite right above. OP is attempting to tie the concept of debt to that of a block size increase. Ridiculous. The increase is simply a well thought out attempt to grow the network worldwide so that Bitcoin cam become digital gold and overcome physical gold's deficiencies as a settlement layer due to its immobility.
Don't forget where you are; this is the Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP thread where we've discussed just these principles of Sound Money, settlement layers, etc for over 4.5 years now by former big pm holders, such as myself.
That guys techno babble conflating numerous economic terms was childish.
No idea why this isn't showing up yet (perhaps they quarantine all my comments before approving?), but here is my drunken reply to/u/Ilogy.
