On Thursday 13 July 2017 9:23:11 PM 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?
This is not correct. The block size limit is raised to 4 MB (400%), but new limits effectively limit it to only around 2 MB (200%). A 2 MB block does not require the resources of a 4 MB block. > 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)? There is a fundamental misunderstanding here: the protocol itself does not care what format is used. It only cares about how data is hashed, and there is no *better* way to do that than what Segwit does. Secondly, note that miners have no part in hardforks. Hardforks are protocol replacements, and need consensus from the entire community. Miners do not *exist* as a concept until *after* the protocol is defined. In other words, all hardforks fire all miners and hire anew - it's then up to the ex-miners if they wish to participate in the new system. The miners don't exist outside the protocol, and as such have no influence on deciding the protocol. > Maybe to BIP-134, maybe to something else fixing current transaction issues > (malleability, non-linear verification cost, verbosity, etc)? Note that to fix non-linear verification cost absolutely (ie, not just for new/Segwit transactions) essentially means theft of funds from people using Bitcoin's "lock time" feature. Furthermore, this usage of the lock time feature is NOT visible on the public blockchain UNTIL the lock time is reached. Therefore, it is necessary to support legacy transactions for the foreseeable future. > But don't mind the limits: if Segwit is *less* space efficient than > currently enforced rules, so it will costs *more* per confirmed transaction > to run a full node, thus the transaction size does poses a long term > centralization concern: Segwit isn't *less* space-efficient, just *not more* space-efficient. However, it *does* enable Lightning, which is magnitudes more space-efficient. > I myself won't be able to run my full node for too much longer, due to > storage requirements. Turn on pruning. Note that pruning does NOT entail a reduction in security. Luke _______________________________________________ bitcoin-discuss mailing list bitcoin-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-discuss
