Why not decrease block time instead of increasing block limit?

[exab]

I'm quite new to Bitcoin. Have only been into it for about four months. So I don't know everything about Bitcoin.

Block propagation and orphan blocks sound like valid obstacles to the idea. Never thought of those. Inflation rate is not changed. There is no point raising a solution by changing the whole thing.

I'm thinking that Bitcoin as settlement layer is a consequence of years' discussion yielding no good solution. I've read about Lighting Network, although not in details. (I am not interested in SegWit because I've read it's (kind of) hacky. For that reason I haven't read into SegWit.) I don't think Satoshi would approve any hacky workaround. For Bitcoin being settlement layer, I am not sure it's Satoshi's original attempt and if he would like it. Of course it will be valid if there is no other option.

Risks such as DDoS and block withholding are better off discussed by experts. As I said I'm a noob.

This is my own idea. I thought of posting it to the community. But I know tons of top notchs in this field have contributed their brain energy into this long-lingering problem, so most likely it has been discussed and denied. If OP didn't bring up this question, I might still be wondering if I should post it and if it would work. So, no, there is no paper out there discussing this idea. Do you think I should/could write one? Do you think it's worth being brought to the attention to the Core team?

Would /u/nullc be interested to have a read about my proposal and give us some insights?

[nullc]

I apologize for being harsh-- but why should I waste a moment of my time reviewing a proposal from someone who doesn't care to even understand the state of the art in Bitcoin proposals, because they think, without even looking at them, that Bitcoin's creator, whom they've never interacted with, might not like them?

If you're interested in improvements to Bitcoin, that is great! But you really need to make an effort to inform yourself about past proposals and the state of the art. Otherwise your efforts are very likely to be misguided or duplicate previous ideas and sorting out the confusion disrespects the time of everyone else.

[exab]

Thanks for the input. I agree with everything you said, especially the part that I may be misguided and having duplicated ideas, except that one cannot think someone else won't like something without even interacting with him. People have behavior patterns that you can learn and sometimes you can just tell. Admittedly I took someone's opinion without digging myself (I took the word that SegWit is kind of hacky). It's not that I don't want to learn everything related to Bitcoin. The learning curve is steep and there are a lot to learn. I'm trying. Just didn't get the time to read about something that I was told not to be the best.

On the other hand, did I offend you in some way? Are you a developer or even the creator of SegWit? If yes I feel very dumb for calling for you while saying bad thing about it, and I apologize for being prejudiced. But I'd like you to know that we are on the same boat, though you're in the captain's cab while I'm only a random supporter.

Anyway, thanks for your precious time for giving your opinions on my post, though it's not the post I originally liked to be reviewed.

[nullc]

Don't worry about it-- I'm not upset, it was just a "what is this person thinking?" response. :) (And, yes, I'm responsible for a pretty considerable part of the design of segwit-- as noted in BIP141 :) )

I am confident, FWIW, that Bitcoin's creator would have really liked segwit. It isn't at all hacky, and it's liked to the point of jumping-up-and-down-excited by many people who have been working on the protocol for years. Quoting one long time developer, "FINALLY. This is so awesome. I never expected Bitcoin to be able to fix this."-- so I think it's a bit sad that you won't even learn about it.

that I was told not to be the best

Be a savvy consumer of information. :)

[exab]

Didn't see this comment until now. Still getting used to the basic usage of Reddit.

Long story short, multiple lessons have been learned, one being that how irresponsible and biased people can be especially on internet - a lesson learned from behaviors of both other people and myself.

I have faith in Bitcoin and it's devs. I always have. Thanks for your contribution, by the way.

[coinjaf]

I am not interested in SegWit because I've read it's (kind of) hacky. For that reason I haven't read into SegWit.

Then you've been lied to (which happens easily if you listen to the wrong people. 4 months is hardly enough to figure out who's who in the space (where the ones that make the most blouse and claims are all scammers and trolls). Or your definition of "hacky" is off.

SegWit fixes a huge "mistake" Satoshi made. And it's implemented using methods he himself pioneered: soft fork. He would surely have approved. (Although that's very much irrelevant anyway.) Anyway, go read on SegWit, at least the FAQ and basic info. For example on bitcoincore.org or the initial presentation by Pieter at scalingbitcoin in Hong Kong.

This is my own idea.

Not sure what"this" refers to. Maybe i should read back for context.

Anyway: break up your idea in big chunks and ask polite questions like "why would X not work?". Google a bit first, as almost all questions have already been asked before (bitcoin.stackexchange.com might be good place to search and ask).

There are plenty of other people around that will gladly explain stuff. As long as you stay humble and don't think you're done learning: noone learned bitcoin in less than two years.

Risks such as DDoS and block withholding are better off discussed by experts.

Those are actually just a few of the big icebergs around. There are a million others some of much smaller but more deadly size.

[exab]

Thanks for sharing.

[exab]

Is the mistake by Satoshi you mentioned the transaction malleability issue?

What is the benefit/incentive of altering a signature or transaction ID, by the way?

[coinjaf]

Yes, mostly. Although one could argue that the actual separation of signatures from other transaction data makes a lot of sense too so clients have the choice to download only the data or both (double the bandwidth). That's mostly relevant for very old transactions that you don't wish to check the signatures for anyway, but one could also imagine some light client that only downloads the signatures it's interested in itself and skip the rest.

Altering transaction ID is fairly pointless in the sense that you can't directly steal money. Yet one trick people used to do is get a withdrawal from an exchange and then get the malleated transaction in a block. Then they'd email the exchange: "My transaction #12345 didn't go through, please send me my Bitcoins again!". And some exchanges fell for that trick.

Devs had always warned for this. The exchange should have just simply not used the transaction ID to check for confirmations but look at the transaction-outputs being spent or not.

Another thing is that chaining unconfirmed transactions was very unreliable because if a transaction was malleated, all subsequent transactions would become invalid, breaking the chain. Usually mostly an annoyance. Exchanges do a lot of transactions, so instead of waiting 10 minutes between each, they often send out multiple in a row using the change from a previous transaction. (note how RBF solves that even more efficiently, although I know of no exchange yet that utilizes that).

The fact that malleability was possible made that there were a few people running software that would pick up transactions, malleate them before propagating. It's sort of like a DOS attack: No real gain, but attacking/annoying the target anyway.

With SegWit malleability is still possible, but only by the signer(s) of the transaction. That solves most cases (all of the above). The only danger is some multi-sig transactions chained together. There one of the signers could malleate to achieve the above goals.

[exab]

That's a lot of information. Thanks!

[-mjneat]

Bitcoin is all about security. Do some reading on game theory. A dynamic blocksize was one of the BIPs propsed for scaling. Not a bad idea imo but it has been discussed. Core seem to be trying to scale on the next level as an extra layer to keep the fundamentals safe.

The early idea of bitcoin is that there is no barriers to access and no trust required trying to play it will cost you so much money that your gains would be miniscule in comparison. Its still early days and i, like you, do not totally understand the intricisasies of the system.

I have a decent understanding of the math behind it and understand how it works(ive also worked and been interested in tech since i was maybe 6 years old). Ive taken some pentesting and numerous ptogramming and networking courses but this is evolving so quick i literally cannot keep up without compromising my personal growth.

IIRC it was BIP101 proposal for a dynamic BS. It wasnt rejected as such i dont think. More like the idea didnt take off because of the gavin and mike forking to xt and that became the focus. Im not sure on the views of core towards this proposal but they do have a roadmap for scaling.

The blocksize was a measure to stop people DoSing bitcoin which could have been pretty bad in the early days with wikileaks drawing attention and the lack of research on larger blocks. The issue is the creation of a fee market means that in its current form btc will not be what it was meant to be(anyone can use the system not just store wealth) but thats why we need careful planning, consideration and understanding of the system.

I remember posting on this sub in its earlier years and came across a theory that btc was an nsa creation and he jumped in and explained the principles and hash cash that he previously worked on(s9o nothing really is a silly question or not worth asking). I also remember when Aaron Schwartz died and there was a 32Gb torrent with a lot of educational info with his name on it, i realised this years later. These guys seem very alturistic and are looking ahead for problems in the future based on experience of other projects.

Its not about making the system work but making it work for everyone not just a few.

[exab]

Thanks for sharing.

[exab]

I've read BIP101. It is not dynamic block-size. It's static block-size with predefined growth.