[bitcoin-dev] Segwit2Mb - combined soft/hard fork - Request For Comments
samson.mow at gmail.com
Sat Apr 1 03:03:03 UTC 2017
A compromise for the sake of compromise doesn't merit technical
discussions. There are no benefits to be gained from a 2MB hard-fork at
this time and it would impose an unnecessary cost to the ecosystem for
testing and implementation.
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com>
>> Hey Sergio,
>> You appear to have ignored the last two years of Bitcoin hardfork
>> research and understanding, recycling instead BIP 102 from 2015. There
>> are many proposals which have pushed the state of hard fork research
>> much further since then, and you may wish to read some of the posts on
>> this mailing list listed at https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/
>> and make further edits based on what you learn.
> I've read every proposal that was published in the last two years and the
> choice for NOT implementing any of the super cool research you cite is
> We're in a deadlock and it seems we can't go forward adding more
> functionality to segwit without the community approval (which include
> miners). This is obvious to me.Then we have to go back.
> If this last resort solution is merged, we could go back to discuss
> improvements with the
> Your goal of "avoid
>> technical changes" appears to not have any basis outside of perceived
>> compromise for compromise sake, only making such a hardfork riskier
>> You're are totally correct. It's a compromise for the compromise sake. I
> couldn't have expressed it more clearly. However the only "riskier" element
> is the hard forking date. We can move the date forward.
>> At a minimum, in terms of pure technical changes, you should probably
>> consider (probably among others):
> a) Utilizing the "hard fork signaling bit" in the nVersion of the block.
> This I could consider, as it requires probably a single line of code.
> Which BIP specifies this?
>> b) Either limiting non-SegWit transactions in some way to fix the n**2
>> sighash and FindAndDelete runtime and memory usage issues or fix them by
>> utilizing the new sighash type which many wallets and projects have
>> already implemented for SegWit in the spending of non-SegWit outputs.
> The Seghash problem has already been addressed by limiting the maximum
> size of a transaction to 1 Mb.
> The FindAndDelete problem has already been solved by the Core Developers,
> so we don't have to worry about it anymore.
>> c) Your really should have replay protection in any HF.
> We could add a simple protection, although if we reach community consensus
> and 95% of hashing power, does we really need to? Can the old chain still
> be alive?
> If more people ask for replay protection, I will merge Spoonet scheme or
> develop the minimum possible replay protection (a simple signaling bit in
> transaction version)
>> d) You may wish to consider the possibility of tweaking the witness
>> discount and possibly discounting other parts of the input - SegWit went
>> a long ways towards making removal of elements from the UTXO set cheaper
>> than adding them, but didn't quite get there, you should probably finish
>> that job. This also provides additional tuneable parameters to allow you
>> to increase the block size while not having a blowup in the worst-case
>> block size.
> That is an interesting economic change and would be out of the scope of
>> e) Additional commitments at the top of the merkle root - both for
>> SegWit transactions and as additional space for merged mining and other
>> commitments which we may wish to add in the future, this should likely
>> be implemented an "additional header" ala Johnson Lau's Spoonnet proposal.
>> That is an interesting technical improvement that is out of the scope of
> We can keep discussing spoonet while we merge segwit2mb, as spoonnet
> includes most of technical innovations.
>> Additionally, I think your parameters here pose very significant risk to
>> the Bitcoin ecosystem broadly.
>> a) Activating a hard fork with less than 18/24 months (and even then...)
>> from a fully-audited and supported release of full node software to
>> activation date poses significant risks to many large software projects
>> and users. I've repeatedly received feedback from various folks that a
>> year or more is likely required in any hard fork to limit this risk, and
>> limited pushback on that given the large increase which SegWit provides
>> itself buying a ton of time.
>> The feedback I received is slightly different from your feedback. Many
> company CTOs have expressed that one year for a Bitcoin hard-fork was
> period they could schedule a secure upgrade.
>> b) Having a significant discontinuity in block size increase only serves
>> to confuse and mislead users and businesses, forcing them to rapidly
>> adapt to a Bitcoin which changed overnight both by hardforking, and by
>> fees changing suddenly. Instead, having the hard fork activate technical
>> changes, and then slowly increasing the block size over the following
>> several years keeps things nice and continuous and also keeps us from
>> having to revisit ye old blocksize debate again six months after
>> This is something worth considering. There is the old Pieter BIP103
> proposal has good parameters (17.7% per year).
> c) You should likely consider the effect of the many technological
>> innovations coming down the pipe in the coming months. Technologies like
>> Lightning, TumbleBit, and even your own RootStock could significantly
>> reduce fee pressure as transactions move to much faster and more
>> featureful systems.
>> RSK sidechain team would have to take very tough decisions if Bitcoin
> splits, as RSK platform cannot be pegged to two different cryptocurrencies.
> We could launch two platforms, but RSK value proposition is "supporting the
> advance of Bitcoin, the cryptocurrecy with highest network effect". You
> understand that if Bitcoin splits Bitcoin BTC/BTU separately may cease to
> be the cryptocurrencies with higher volume/market cap/network effect.
> Therefore all RSK people that I talked too would prefer to avoid a split
> at all cost, reather that to be the winners of the scaling war.
>> On March 31, 2017 5:09:18 PM EDT, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >Hi everyone,
>> >Segwit2Mb is the project to merge into Bitcoin a minimal patch that
>> >aims to
>> >untangle the current conflict between different political positions
>> >regarding segwit activation vs. an increase of the on-chain blockchain
>> >space through a standard block size increase. It is not a new solution,
>> >it should be seen more as a least common denominator.
>> >Segwit2Mb combines segwit as it is today in Bitcoin 0.14+ with a 2MB
>> >size hard-fork activated ONLY if segwit activates (95% of miners
>> >signaling), but at a fixed future date.
>> >The sole objective of this proposal is to re-unite the Bitcoin
>> >and avoid a cryptocurrency split. Segwit2Mb does not aim to be best
>> >possible technical solution to solve Bitcoin technical limitations.
>> >However, this proposal does not imply a compromise to the future
>> >scalability or decentralization of Bitcoin, as a small increase in
>> >size has been proven by several core and non-core developers not to
>> >Bitcoin value propositions.
>> >In the worst case, a 2X block size increase has much lower economic
>> >than the last bitcoin halving (<10%), which succeeded without problem.
>> >On the other side, Segwit2Mb primary goal is to be minimalistic: in
>> >patch some choices have been made to reduce the number of lines
>> >modified in
>> >the current Bitcoin Core state (master branch), instead of implementing
>> >most elegant solution. This is because I want to reduce the time it
>> >for core programmers and reviewers to check the correctness of the
>> >and to report and correct bugs.
>> >The patch was built by forking the master branch of Bitcoin Core,
>> >mixing a
>> >few lines of code from Jeff Garzik's BIP102, and defining a second
>> >versionbits activation bit (bit 2) for the combined activation.
>> >The combined activation of segwit and 2Mb hard-fork nVersion bit is 2
>> >This means that segwit can still be activated without the 2MB hard-fork
>> >signaling bit 1 in nVersion (DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT).
>> >The tentative lock-in and hard-fork dates are the following:
>> >Bit 2 signaling StartTime = 1493424000; // April 29th, 2017
>> >Bit 2 signaling Timeout = 1503964800; // August 29th, 2017
>> >HardForkTime = 1513209600; // Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 GMT
>> >The hard-fork is conditional to 95% of the hashing power has approved
>> >segwit2mb soft-fork and the segwit soft-fork has been activated (which
>> >should occur 2016 blocks after its lock-in time)
>> >For more information on how soft-forks are signaled and activated, see
>> >This means that segwit would be activated before 2Mb: this is
>> >as versionbits have been designed to have fixed activation periods and
>> >thresholds for all bits. Making segwit and 2Mb fork activate together
>> >at a
>> >delayed date would have required a major re-write of this code, which
>> >contradict the premise of creating a minimalistic patch. However, once
>> >segwit is activated, the hard-fork is unavoidable.
>> >Although I have coded a first version of the segwit2mb patch (which
>> >modifies 120 lines of code, and adds 220 lines of testing code), I
>> >prefer to wait to publish the source code until more comments have been
>> >received from the community.
>> >To prevent worsening block verification time because of the O(N^2)
>> >problem, the simple restriction that transactions cannot be larger than
>> >has been kept. Therefore the worse-case of block verification time has
>> >Regarding the hard-fork activation date, I want to give enough time to
>> >active economic nodes to upgrade. As of Fri Mar 31 2017,
>> >https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/ reports that 6332 out of 6955 nodes (91%)
>> >have upgraded to post 0.12 versions. Upgrade to post 0.12 versions can
>> >used to identify economic active nodes, because in the 0.12 release
>> >fees were introduced, and currently no Bitcoin automatic payment system
>> >operate without automatic discovery of the current fee rate. A pre-0.12
>> >would require constant manual intervention.
>> >Therefore I conclude that no more than 91% of the network nodes
>> >reported by
>> >bitnodes are active economic nodes.
>> >As Bitcoin Core 0.12 was released on February 2016, the time for this
>> >to upgrade has been around one year (under a moderate pressure of
>> >operational problems with unconfirmed transactions).
>> >Therefore we can expect a similar or lower time to upgrade for a
>> >after developers have discussed and approved the patch, and it has been
>> >reviewed and merged and 95% of the hashing power has signaled for it
>> >pressure not to upgrade being a complete halt of the operations).
>> >However I
>> >suggest that we discuss the hard-fork date and delay it if there is a
>> >need to.
>> >Currently time works against the Bitcoin community, and so is delaying
>> >compromise solution. Most of the community agree that halting the
>> >innovation for several years is a very bad option.
>> >After the comments collected by the community, a BIP will be written
>> >describing the resulting proposal details.
>> >If segwit2mb locks-in, before hard-fork occurs all bitcoin nodes should
>> >updated to a Segwit2Mb enabled node to prevent them to be forked-away
>> >in a
>> >chain with almost no hashing-power.
>> >The proof of concept patch was made for Bitcoin Core but should be
>> >ported to other Bitcoin protocol implementations that already support
>> >versionbits. Lightweight (SPV) wallets should not be affected as they
>> >generally do not check the block size.
>> >I personally want to see the Lightning Network in action this year, use
>> >non-malleability features in segwit, see the community discussing other
>> >exciting soft-forks in the scaling roadmap, Schnorr sigs, drivechains
>> >I want to see miners, developers and industry side-by-side pushing
>> >forward, to increase the value of Bitcoin and prevent high transaction
>> >to put out of business use-cases that could have high positive social
>> >I believe in the strength of a unified Bitcoin community. If you're a
>> >developer, please give your opinion, suggest changes, audit it, and
>> >take a
>> >stand with me to unlock the current Bitcoin deadlock.
>> >Contributions to the segwit2mb project are welcomed and awaited. The
>> >limitation is to stick to the principle that the patch should be as
>> >to audit as possible. As an example, I wouldn't feel confident if the
>> >modified more than ~150 lines of code.
>> >Improvements unrelated to a 2 Mb increase or segwit, as beneficial as
>> >may be to Bitcoin, should not be part of segwit2Mb.
>> >This proposal should not prevent other consensus proposals to be
>> >simultaneously merged: segwit2mb is a last resort solution in case we
>> >not reach consensus on anything better.
>> >Again, the proposal is only a starting point: community feedback is
>> >expected and welcomed.
>> >Sergio Demian Lerner
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitcoin-dev