It is incorrect. SegWit only takes a small overhead of a few percent due to 
being wrapped in P2SH.
The primary argument that is being written incorrectly has to do with the 
primary motivation of a limit. Several people (including me) believe that the 
only purpose of the limit is to prevent a rogue miner from creating a gigantic 
block. These people (including me) believe the network should never operate 
anywhere *near* this limit. With SegWit this limit is extended to 4mb, while 
the practical maximum transaction rate  is raised only by 1.7x.
Regardless, it is not a particularly valid criticism, as neither a single 4mb 
block nor a single 32mb block would serve as a viable DoS attack.
I believe the primary problem with SegWit is that it incentives miners not to 
download witness data as I have explained here: 
https://bitcrust.org/blog-incentive-shift-segwit.html
This is without doubt bad in the long term for the security of bitcoin and 
entirely preventable by using another malleabilty fix like BIP140.
Tomas
bitcrust



On Thu, Jul 13, 2017, at 23:23, Lucas Clemente Vella via bitcoin-discuss 
wrote:> I just read on a Reddit post by a SegWit opposer that it increases the 
badwitdth and storage needs to 400% of current needs, while allowing for 160% 
of the number number of transactions. Is that true? Is 240% more data the price 
we pay for preventing non-updated nodes from forking the network?> If that is 
true, isn't that worse in the long term (security and centralization-wise) than 
simply hardforking into a better transaction format (given appropriate miner 
consensus)? Maybe to BIP-134, maybe to something else fixing current 
transaction issues (malleability, non-linear verification cost, verbosity, 
etc)?> 
> -- 
> Lucas Clemente Vella
> [email protected]
> _________________________________________________
> bitcoin-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-discuss

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-discuss

Reply via email to