Re: [bitcoin-dev] Some real-world results about the current Segwit Discount

2017-05-08 Thread Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev
Sergio, I'm not sure what the data you present has to do with the discount. A 75% discount prevents witness spam precisely because it is 75%, nothing more. The current usage simply gives a guideline on how much capacity is gained through a particular discount. With the data you show, it would im

Re: [bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF

2017-04-20 Thread Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev
A WTXID commitment would (likely) need to be a UASF. On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > The "UASF movement" seems a bit premature to me - I doubt UASF will be > necessary if a WTXID commitment is tried first. I thin

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting

2017-03-28 Thread Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev
His demand (not suggestion) allows it without any safeguards. >This patch must be in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core. That is not a suggestion. Wang - still waiting on the details of this meeting. In the spirit of openness, I think you ought to share with the community what kind of s

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting

2017-03-28 Thread Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev
is possible or 1MB is to low today. > > > > If is unsafe or impossible to raise the blocksize is a different topic. > > > Regards > > > > Juan > > > > > > *From:* bitcoin-dev-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org [mailto: > bitcoin-dev-boun...@lists.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting

2017-03-28 Thread Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev
What meeting are you referring to? Who were the participants? Removing the limit but relying on the p2p protocol is not really a true 32MiB limit, but a limit of whatever transport methods provide. This can lead to differing consensus if alternative layers for relaying are used. What you seem to

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Defending against empty or near empty blocks from malicious miner takeover?

2017-03-26 Thread Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev
As a user, I would far prefer a split over any kind of mandatory change that would drastically harm the ecosystem. Many users feel the same way. Level 3 is a pure attack on users who do not conform to your beliefs. Please do not put words in people's mouths claiming they wouldn't prefer a split wh

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Quadratic hashing solution for a post-segwit hard fork

2017-03-16 Thread Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev
This unnecessarily complicates transaction selection for miners by introducing a second (and possibly third if I understand your proposal correctly) dimension to try to optimize. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_packing_problem Segwit already solves this exact issue by replacing block size

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

2017-03-07 Thread Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev
I fail to see how any non-mining user can attack a miner. The worst they can do is refuse to buy their coinbase transaction. Do you believe that users are obligated to buy coins from miners? If not, then all miners are voluntarily choosing a set of rules to enforce and a set of policy to mine.