[bitcoin-dev] Segwit2Mb - combined soft/hard fork - Request For Comments

Sergio Demian Lerner sergio.d.lerner at gmail.com
Thu Apr 6 21:03:12 UTC 2017

Ups. My mistake:  the mempool will not grow 400 times, the is no square
I will initially grow 20 times. Multiplied by the number of times a
transaction may need to be replaced with one with higher fees. Maybe 50
times, but not 400.

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner <
sergio.d.lerner at gmail.com> wrote:

> The 95% miner signaling is important to prevent two Bitcoin forks, such as
> what happened with Ethereum HF and Ethereum Classic.
> Bitcoin has a very slow difficulty re-targeting algorithm. A fork that has
> just 95% miner support will initially (for 2016 blocks) be 5% slower (an
> average block every 10 minutes and 30 seconds). The transaction capacity of
> the new Bitcoin protocol is reduced only 5%.
> However the chain with 5% if the hashing power not only has a 20x capacity
> reduction, but confirms transactions in 20x more time. So the mempool will
> grow 400 times. It must be noted that fees increased 10x from the moment
> blocks were half full, to the moment blocks became saturated. I'm sure no
> Bitcoin (pre-fork) user will be willing to pay 100x times the transaction
> fees to use such a slow and insecure network.
> So a 6-block confirmation will take 20 hours in the original chain and the
> original chain will be in this almost useless slow state for an average of
> 2016 blocks, or 280 days.
> If the original blockchain hard-forks to re-adjust the difficulty, then it
> will just represent an alt-coin having 5% of Bitcoin community, and it
> can't affect Bitcoin (the segwit2mb fork).
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Btc Drak <btcdrak at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> The hard-fork is conditional to 95% of the hashing power has approved
>>> the segwit2mb soft-fork and the segwit soft-fork has been activated (which
>>> should occur 2016 blocks after its lock-in time)
>> Miners signalling they have upgraded by flipping a bit in the nVersion
>> field has little relevance in a hard fork. If 100% of the hash power
>> indicates they are running this proposal, but the nodes don't upgrade, what
>> will happen?
>> For the record, I actually talk a lot about hard forks with various
>> developers and am very interested in the research that Johnson in
>> particular is pioneering. However, I have failed to understand your point
>> about 95% miner signalling in relation to a hard fork, so I am eagerly
>> awaiting your explanation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170406/3b9044c6/attachment.html>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list