My continuing adventures to spread the facts and cut through the BS
Key points
- the the transaction throughput problem is not in and of itself the issue, its an artefact of not removing the temporary DOS fix of blocksize limit in time
- Segwit as a solution to to the transaction throughput problem infers that artificially limiting throughput is the intended operating mode of the network.
- Segwit as an engineering solution to transaction throughput is objectively bad because it directly addresses an unrelated issue and only indirectly address the issue.
[doublepost=1457536668][/doublepost]My first shadowban! <3
[doublepost=1457536703][/doublepost]Good thing I composed the text elsewhere:
As I recall there is a study that was done on children to ascertain cognitive development. The study found there is strong correlation between age and ability to choose deferred gratification.
In a simple situation such as $50 now vs $100 tomorrow then in the absence of external factors the rational choice is easy. So I am surprised that you said "most people take the $50" because I don see haw that can be explained by impulsivity alone. I would question whether in fact it was more to do with the belief that they would actually get the $100 tomorrow.
As the complexity of the scenario increases the number of unknown variables ensures that it is almost impossible to objectively dictate the most rational course of action.
In the face of unknown variables the most rational course of action is actually to base a decision on known facts. Unknown information can be considered but has to be weighed differently.
A 2MB increase would allow for a 100% increase in throughput from the current situation, and as you point out thats 300k more than segwit. I think thats a red herring though. 1.7 or 2MB doesn't matter ( the 300k difference is incidental). What is important is that the network was not designed to be constrained by an artificial limit. Any such limit was in fact itself the *unnecessary kludge*. A temporary fix put in place to work around a situation. I refuse to say that it is being used as a political spear because that cannot be factually established.
The transaction throughput problem only exists if you think that the limit was intended to limit transactions. There is wide discussion on this topic which I am sure you are aware of some parts of the discussion can be considered factual. Though I apprecaite you might disgree.
The 1MB limit was a temporary fix to limit DOS attacks. It was never intended to limit traffic and so the current *transaction throughput* problem has arisen because the limit has not been removed in time for growth to continue uninterrupted. The solution is to remove the limit.
Before doing this we have to be sure that the reasons why the limit existed have been addressed. The stated reasons have been studied, and mitigated. The system should be allowed to continue growing as it has, unencumbered until such time as there is strong evidence that it cannot. That was how it was designed to operate. Without central control, with absolute reliance on natural market forces to keep all players in check.
Segwit as a solution to the *transaction throughput* problem relies on the premise that transaction throughput is artificially limited. More specifically that this is the intentional operating mode of the system. Something that is in no way reflected in the whitepaper or the majority of the historical discussion.
It is true now that there are some members of the core team that do believe this should be the case. Whilst they are entitled to their opinion I respectfully disagree with them. Circumstance are such that these people do have significant power over bitcoin as a whole. This power is a weak point in bitcoin right now imho. Spontaneous "reorg" of development to me would be a massive breakthrough in terms of the ecosystem demonstrating resilience to centralisation in any form. I am not "anti-core" ("core" is huge how could you be anti all of them?). I am pro choice and I think right now the gears of consensus are stuck, I think once they are unstuck the bitcoin machine will be unstoppable.
So, to me it looks like Segwit is being sold as a solution to a transaction throughput problem that is actively being curated, through the out-and-out refusal to simply remove the 1MB temporary fix. (Replace it with 2MB if it makes people feel safe, but remember thats just as awkward a kludge!)
Remove the limit the problem goes away. When such a simple solution exists to a problem, it is natural to question why the problem is not being addressed.
Selling segwit as an upgrade to transaction throughput seems disingenuous. What segwit appears to do is seperate signature data from transaction data and then price the two things differently. This does not appear to be directly connected to the issue of transaction throughput. If segwit split transaction data and signature data and did nothing else then you could say it did so for the reason of fitting more transactions in a block, but it doesn't do that - why? Why does it price these two things differently?
I have heard "Cheaper Fees!" Who doeasnt want cheaper fees right? It sounds like a sales pitch though because its not cheaper fees its differently calculated fees. In any case Cheaper Fees contradicts the notion of a fee market, which is one of the justifications not to raise the block limit!? This doeasnt make sense to me so again I question why?
Surely the protocol should be agnostic in these matters and leave fee discovery to miners. How doeas pricing transaction data/witness data *automatically* lead to cheaper fees. The cost per byte of the in block data will just rise to the new equilibrium.
Then there is the amorphous "lays the groundwork for even greater improvements". I assume this is eextending the scripting language. The "benefit" here is that you can softfork everything. Why would you want that? Hardorks and consensus are central to the incentive mechanism that keeps participants honest?
Then there is malleability. Who can argue with that! We all remeber big bad scary MtGox right?
So what we have is an (IP?)Bill being pushed through parliament to feed the starving children of Africa (transaction throughput) because terrorists (malleability). Attached to it is a there is this subclause that the food crates can also carry other stuff that isnt food and we wont charge for that so its a cheaper way to send stuff to africa(actual segwit purpose). Then in the small print on the back page in a footnote it says we have the right to retrospectively use this legislation to automatucally bring in any other legislation we choose without having to go through parliamentary process (other improvements!).
OK the above paragraph is a satrical commentary and not to be taken seriously. It illustrates how the peons on the ground feel though. We want or $50 because it feels like the $100 that is being offered tomorrow isnt tomorrow its some unspecified date in the future, and actually between now and then its unclear what $100 will actually buy you, and also you need to sign this other agreement here....
In that situation taking the $50 now is not impulsive, its the most rational decision given the currently available information.
I am not arguing that segwit has no merit. I'm saying lets cross that bridge next, and fix the glaringly obvious issue that right now there is a barrier to natural growth in place that *will* be hit.
Remove the limit.
http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/1txn
[doublepost=1457536851][/doublepost]seems to be the URL that got it nuked