On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:21:55AM +0000, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev < > > So I'd like to ask the community that we work towards this plan, as it > > allows to make progress without being forced to make a possibly divisive > > choice for one hardfork or another yet. > Thank you for saying this. I also think the plan is solid and delivers > multiple benefits without being contentious. The number of wins are so > numerous, it's frankly a no-brainer.
+1's are off-topic, but... +1. My impression is that each of libsecp256k1, versionbits, segregated witness, IBLT, weak blocks, and OP_CSV have been demonstrated to be significant improvements that are implementable, and don't introduce any new attacks or risks [0]. There's some freaking awesome engineering that's gone into all of those. > I guess the next step for segwit is a BIP and deployment on a testnet? I think the following proposed features are as yet missing from Pieter's segwit branch, and I'm guessing patches for them would be appreciated: - enforcing the proposed base+witness/4 < 1MB calculation - applying limits to sigops seen in witness signatures I guess there might be other things that still need to be implemented as well (and presumably bugs of course)? I think I'm convinced that the proposed plan is the best approach (as opposed to separate base<1MB, witness<3MB limits, or done as a hard fork, or without committing to a merkle head for the witnesses, eg), though. jl2012 already pointed to a draft segwit BIP in another thread, repeated here though: https://github.com/jl2012/bips/blob/segwit/bip-segwit.mediawiki Cheers, aj (hoping that was enough content after the +1 to not get modded ;) [0] I'm still not persuaded that even a small increase in blocksize doesn't introduce unacceptable risks (frankly, I'm not entirely persuaded the *current* limits don't have unacceptable risk) and that frustrates me no end. But I guess (even after six months of reading arguments about it!) I'm equally unpersuaded that there's actually more to the intense desire for more blocksize is anything other than fear/uncertainty/doubt mixed with a desire for transactions to be effectively free, rather than costing even a few cents each... So, personally, since the above doesn't really resolve that quandry for me, it doesn't really resolve the blocksize debate for me either. YMMV. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
