1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
|
Return-Path: <j@toom.im>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63EE9B05
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:44:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E433811D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:44:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([58.96.168.240]) (authenticated bits=0)
by d.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id tBEBiX8o010337
(version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT);
Mon, 14 Dec 2015 03:44:36 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_70815113-0B5E-4436-8F65-1D74AE7631BF";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>
In-Reply-To: <b13f6152767473dcf44a1d8965fdd32c@xbt.hk>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 19:44:34 +0800
Message-Id: <05E42ED2-8F04-4018-B137-74D79BD46348@toom.im>
References: <b13f6152767473dcf44a1d8965fdd32c@xbt.hk>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVaLTs3dpTgMVB2/Ymaa0It3ELLQvtYzcW2Yt0DwIBQmLzFxFjGAiZg4MdkENmNYV9oxLpTwpVIzt/8vgxAQo5s0
X-Sonic-ID: C;eI5cC1ii5RGdesgxU3XIUw== M;VHEUDVii5RGdesgxU3XIUw==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness features wish list
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:44:44 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_70815113-0B5E-4436-8F65-1D74AE7631BF
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
1. I think we should limit the sum of the block and witness data to =
nBlockMaxSize*7/4 per block, for a maximum of 1.75 MB total. I don't =
like the idea that SegWit would give us 1.75 MB of capacity in the =
typical case, but we have to have hardware capable of 4 MB in =
adversarial conditions (i.e. intentional multisig). I think a limit to =
the segwit size allays that concern.
2. I think that segwit is a substantial change to how Bitcoin works, and =
I very strongly believe that we should not rush this. It changes the =
block structure, it changes the transaction structure, it changes the =
network protocol, it changes SPV wallet software, it changes block =
explorers, and it has changes that affect most other parts of the =
Bitcoin ecosystem. After we decide to implement it, and have a final =
version of the code that will be merged, we should give developers of =
other Bitcoin software time to implement code that supports the new =
transaction/witness formats.
When you guys say "as soon as possible," what do you mean exactly?
On Dec 10, 2015, at 2:47 PM, jl2012--- via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> It seems the current consensus is to implement Segregated Witness. SW =
opens many new possibilities but we need a balance between new features =
and deployment time frame. I'm listing by my priority:
>=20
> 1-2 are about scalability and have highest priority
>=20
> 1. Witness size limit: with SW we should allow a bigger overall block =
size. It seems 2MB is considered to be safe for many people. However, =
the exact size and growth of block size should be determined based on =
testing and reasonable projection.
>=20
> 2. Deployment time frame: I prefer as soon as possible, even if none =
of the following new features are implemented. This is not only a =
technical issue but also a response to the community which has been =
waiting for a scaling solution for years
>=20
--Apple-Mail=_70815113-0B5E-4436-8F65-1D74AE7631BF
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWbquiAAoJEIEuMk4MG0P1rfAH/i4tU1Lf8b4PGOZW468H43k/
oqvMiLy+T/HpKVMUZAh3xBbeo94qCjjdptWT2QzIRuXAhMOeapYmKFHrx7MwX2dW
RuF6SMYY+rkO+ULXTzK+v5U8m/sOW6NfuJZ4mCv1TjBF21bkxzwHP3xgwNBcBVZ6
VU+G+mneZtAva/LUO2/ES4Jf4okrHU6bmWEJpgAce1jI/RJYcmVtG7BMy2Nz3wLb
onFDe9M/0lKACNZQ94BwG17CX1P20p26R8pxwnU5zer0kNvUqUOtsHa8C7XjRIm2
4DPU/3hs3r0MoIiFZu3PacZhrA8k6IyEUpjI4/pvVb3mN058goQZQRRI1tAFTK0=
=QP+K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_70815113-0B5E-4436-8F65-1D74AE7631BF--
|
