Quote from: Lauda on January 22, 2016, 06:41:27 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 22, 2016, 05:39:05 AM

Lauda, so in addition to the 'quadratic' risk (for which you admit there is a fix but core is not implementing),
you're also giving us the 'nothing is better than something' argument.

So let's set the situation straight. We have two proposals:

1. 2MB Block size

doubles the theoretical tps
introduces a new attack vector
Simple change
Hard fork

2. SegWit

Fixes transaction malleability
Fraud proofs
Simpler script upgrades
Theoretical tps possibly equal or higher than with 2 MB blocks depending on adoption
Somewhat complex; decent complexity for inexperienced users
Soft fork

I'm definitely shilling for Core because obviously SegWit is not far superior to a 'simple' block size increase. Roll Eyes

I 'don't seem to always support them'. Do I support them in 'Core vs Classic', 'SegWit vs 2 MB blocks'? Yes.

Well, if you want to be taken serious then you can't really add a new attack vector to the 2 mb block solution when you already know that it is no problem anymore with a fix existing. Roll Eyes

You told me in the old, now closed thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1333937.msg13634824#msg13634824

that you did not get what i was asking. The question was, segwit blocks can't be verified by non-segwit nodes(miners) but the nodes are forced to accept them anyway to enforce that segway will be able to create the blockchain without having >50%. Right so far? You claim that in no way 10% can create a fork. But wasn't it said that the blocks have to be accepted by nonsegwit nodes even when they can't check if the transactions are valid?

And miners need to check if the last block was valid by checking if all the transactions are valid and check if the hash for the block is valid. With segwit blocks only segwit miner nodes can check, non segwit nodes accept it even when the transactions would be bogus.

So what is wrong? That non segwit nodes can not check if a segwit block is valid and so would accept corrupt segwit blocks too because it was built this time for this fork this way?

You did not say what happens when someone spams the network with segway blocks that are not valid but have to be accepted by the non segwit nodes.

Then you claimed that the 2mb attack vector is no danger to 1mb blocks. Because the validation time is quadratic. The same transaction on 2mb could mean a 10 minute solve time, on 1mb only 20-30 seconds. But wouldn't the risk be the same the when someone simply creates 20 to 30 of such transactions, maybe in different blocks? These blocks would have to be checked all. So why is it no problem with 1mb blocks?

And again you claimed the internal movement of bitcoins inside of lightning network are real bitcoins. Guess you don't even get why people prefer to buy material gold instead owning a paper that gives you the right on gold. Theres a clear difference and since you seem to not even get to think over your claim when everyone else tells you that your view on the topic is wrong, i will stop here like i said i will. It seems to make no sense to discuss this with you.[/list]