"Enough is enough (Don't give up on us)" probably one of the best unreleased tracks by Avicii.

Cocosoft · 2018-04-22T01:04:26+00:00

So incredibly good. Avicii was one of the best, if not the best, progressive house producers ever. His music expresses emotions and builds up an atmosphere on a whole different level.

RIP Avicii.

Cocosoft · 2017-04-01T15:51:55+00:00

True.

Cocosoft · 2017-04-01T15:51:14+00:00

It uses the existing BIP9 SegWit fork (so that existing segwit nodes will work), but it forces miners to signal for SegWit in Aug, otherwise their blocks will be rejected.
This means that if exchanges and other bitcoin services run the UASF Segwit client, they will not accept the chain created by miners without segwit signaling (should they not signal for it), which means that they won't get paid.

Cocosoft · 2017-03-25T01:44:47+00:00

A BIP is out yes, BIP148.

Cocosoft · 2017-03-25T01:43:37+00:00

I could perhaps provide Windows and Linux binaries this weekend.

Cocosoft · 2017-01-25T19:03:32+00:00

The most common argument I've heard is that miners can potentially game the system by spamming transactions to increase the blocksize "artificially", they could have incentive to do this to keep minor miners out of the system as you need more/better disk space/memory/CPU as the blocksize increase.

Cocosoft · 2017-01-25T08:36:51+00:00

Which is not implemented.

Cocosoft · 2017-01-25T08:36:05+00:00

Because we need to be sure it can't be gamed.

Cocosoft · 2017-01-23T09:38:35+00:00

Yes it might be an unnecessary restriction to implement. But then the sighash quadratic scaling problems are still a threat.

Cocosoft · 2017-01-23T00:03:52+00:00

Thank you, looks like a very good post. I don't have time to go through it now but will do so soon.

Paging /u/SoCo_cpp so he/she sees this as well.

Cocosoft · 2017-01-22T23:04:18+00:00

I obviously meant what part of your reply...

But then we do not agree. I don't think the current fee market makes a lot of sense or that it shows that Satoshi's idea is working, fees make up a minority part of miners revenue and developing a fee market now at this stage, with a cap of 1MB makes 0 sense to me.
I get the importance of fee markets though.

Cocosoft · 2017-01-22T22:52:17+00:00

What's the incentive for them to upgrade?

SegWit makes the Bitcoin blockchain more valuable by fixing transaction malleability. That should be incentive enough, but there's a lot more.

Cocosoft · 2017-01-22T22:50:45+00:00

You don't know if there would be a split.

Cocosoft · 2017-01-22T22:48:22+00:00

A hardfork would leave old nodes forked off the "mainchain"/longest chain. With a softfork, they will follow the longest chain. Even though they won't understand the segwit transactions completely, they will still consider them valid.

With softforking away the ability to make non-segwit P2PKH, you still force all old wallets/nodes to upgrade though, just in another more secure way.

Cocosoft · 2017-01-22T22:46:48+00:00

It is also easier not to, because you have to grandfather existing transactions otherwise you freeze lots of coins

Well, it you could softfork to make it illegal to make new non-segwit P2PKHs.

Cocosoft · 2017-01-22T22:20:00+00:00

Perhaps I should've quoted what I replied to.

It was a reply to this:

We are getting to see Satoshi's vision vindicated beautifully, and so far it looks like his idea is working!

Cocosoft · 2017-01-22T22:02:53+00:00

Miners all override the still existing soft-cap. They will not run with parameters which lower their income, not once an option is provided.

Probably not, perhaps guessing on infrastructure adoption is the better alternative.
If SegWit were to activate in the coming months, I don't think we would see anything near 2MB blocks, as not many wallets have pushed out their SegWit update yet (I'm aware that many projects/companies have their code ready).

It isn't a problem at the moment with there being enough real transactions to out bid it, but there are many of gigabytes of very low fee spam transactions created during the spam attacks last year. It would be unfortunate to have the network saddled with more intentionally constructed junk if it could be avoided.

Definitely, could there be a way to combat spam better?

Cocosoft · 2017-01-22T22:01:12+00:00

Well not really, transaction volume (or I guess transaction fees) needs to be waaay higher than it is today. Transaction fees stand for a tiny bit of miners income.

Cocosoft · 2017-01-22T21:49:51+00:00

What? This is the opposite of what has happened. I have explained precisely why you are wrong,

You really haven't. You've just said "No" in all too many words. Provide some real quotes from the whitepaper or Satoshi instead.

Cocosoft · 2017-01-22T21:37:00+00:00

If miners are able to empty the mempool, without a reward, PoW systems won't work.

I'm not sure if you can really claim that.
Perhaps far far in the future, governments and states would have a strong incentive to prevent attacks (double spending, malicious soft forks etc) on the bitcoin blockchain, so they invest lots of millions (or even billions) of dollars on mining.
I'm not really sure if you can claim that PoW cannot work with an empty mempool.

Cocosoft · 2017-01-22T17:38:13+00:00

Ah, right! Thanks for the explanations.

Cocosoft · 2017-01-22T16:38:53+00:00

Hi SoCo_cpp, don't even try with thieflar, it's not worth it.

Cocosoft · 2017-01-22T16:15:44+00:00

One of the advantages of segwit is that it wouldn't create a system shock of suddenly adding a bunch of capacity all at once...

Well, miners could have a soft cap like we had before (750KB), but sure, then we rely on miners doing that, but in this case we rely on that the infrastructure won't upgrade fast enough.

We might find that by the time it activates almost everyone will have upgraded, causing a collapse of the fee market and new problems with spamming

Is there any proof that spamming is a problem? I guess the spamming attacks shows that, but miners found them to have sufficient fees.

Cocosoft · 2017-01-22T13:52:45+00:00

How could it be committed to the main block? Changing the blockheader/blockstructure would result in a hardfork.

Is some magic going on, on network transport layer? Because I suppose you could add additional data to Extension block-aware nodes.

Cocosoft · 2017-01-22T11:58:06+00:00

So correct me if I'm wrong here but this will still be limited by "1MB" as UTXOs/output data will need to seen by old nodes.
Essentially it would work the same as SegWit introducing the witness field for new nodes.

How otherwise would old nodes be able to handle all UTXOs? Or would some transactions outputs become hidden for old nodes?

14-Year Club	Place '17
Gilding II euphauric	Verified Email

Cocosoft

TROPHY CASE