[Bitcoin-segwit2x] segwit2x alpha release code drop

[Jeff Garzik]

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Rough analogy:  Imagine a market where automobiles are sold by weight
>> (kg).  This market now embarks on an opt-in transition to selling
>> automobiles based on engine size (cc's), a metric that automobile experts
>> agree better measures automobile ability.  Result:  Some bidders in the
>> market buy cars based on weight, others based on cc's.  How does one bid
>> efficiently in an always-in-transition market?   SegWit is not just a
>> technology upgrade, it is a market upgrade.
>>
>
> I'm not convinced this analogy fits given that the market completely
> transitions to all users bidding based upon weight. Users who are driving
> old, heavy cars will now be incentivized to upgrade to more modern cars
> manufactured with lightweight materials.
>

Comments,

C1) I was making a larger point that you have two different resources that
really do have two different supply and demand rates, and bidding into that
market is complex.

C2) It is therefore a *simplification* and *assumption* that market users
will behave a certain way in bidding for witness data area.   Wallets that
hardcode this assumption may therefore be making non-optimal economic
decisions on behalf of their users.

C3) It seems unwise to build in *artificial* incentives to transition from
a known-working system to a new system.  Let that happen naturally.




>
>
>>
>> 2) Witness discount/scaling factor
>>
>> It is fair to say that this remains an issue of note.  A few WG members
>> have independently described the witness discount as an arbitrary economic
>> incentive encoded directly into the software.
>>
>> As a thought exercise, removing the scaling factor still retains extra
>> witness space and therefore retains a natural incentive to stash data
>> there, while removing a weighting that may or may not be the best ratio.
>>
>> Block weight plays into this - if you're not scaling, you don't need an
>> abstract "weight" unit, just a total size.   For wallets (#1, above), size
>> is probably more simple to reason and calculate than weight.  Block size is
>> a well studied attribute, versus block weight.
>>
>>
>> The witness discount is not arbitrary. The economics of spending inputs
> versus creating outputs is terribly imbalanced and the discount is applied
> in order to bring it more in balance. It can cost 5X-10X as much (data size
> & thus fees) to add an input (↓ UTXO set size) vs an output (↑ UTXO set
> size) to a transaction. It could probably be argued that a 75% discount is
> actually conservative in terms of trying to rebalance this discrepancy.
>
> I'm not so sure that there is a perfect ratio given the arbitrary
> complexity that inputs can have. I think you'd need some kind of dynamic
> weighting that would be much more complex and would require significant
> development resources to implement. I don't think we should let perfect be
> the enemy of good given the timeline of this project.
>


The sum of these two paragraphs is: [it's not arbitrary][ok, it's
arbitrary]   :)

The bigger point, though, is that you cannot just look at the witness
discount purely through a narrow UTXO lens.

The other side of the artificial incentive, for example, is that you have
created a direct incentive to put cheap garbage data into this newly
extended block.  Let's call this Garbage Risk.

This is the risk of not letting the market naturally balance itself out,
and one of several unintended consequences of inserting an artificial ratio.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
CEO and Co Founder
Bloq, Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20170616/499228eb/attachment.html>