Quote from: iCEBREAKER on April 23, 2016, 12:34:42 AM

...

That's half true. 1MB also serves as a sanity check to prevent blocks with sigops construed so as to require outrageous processing times.

That's why BIP109 includes sigop and sighash limits, which are an unwelcome source of additional technical debt and magic-number-based cruft.

sigop and sighash limits can be based on the blocksize.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on April 23, 2016, 12:34:42 AM

Bitcoin has a fixed emission with no tail-end after the main body of subsidies end, so it cannot use dynamic market-based Monero-style block sizing heuristics (unless we raise the 21e6 coin limit, which is simply out of the question).

This summarizes very well the fundamental problem that Bitcoin has. Bitcoin needs the fixed blocksize to secure the coin using fees when the emission runs out, so ultimately Bitcoin cannot scale. Whether even with a fixed blocksize fees alone can secure Bitcoin remains however to be seen.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on April 25, 2016, 01:11:20 AM

Quote from: ArticMine on April 23, 2016, 12:28:21 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 23, 2016, 12:18:41 AM

Segregated Witness is just another way to centralize mining. I will explain that in the future when I am ready.

... but that is a small price to pay in order to ~~increase the blocksize from 1 MB to an effective 1.6 MB~~ accomplish

Malleability Fixes
Linear scaling of sighash operations
Signing of input values
Increased security for multisig via pay-to-script-hash (P2SH)
Script versioning
Reducing UTXO growth
Compact fraud proofs

Fixed it for you.

Gotta love the anti-segwit All Star team of Crazy Uncle Shelby, Frap.doc, and Jorge Stolfi.

It's like you guys come up with this FUD after enjoying too many Pan-Galactic Gargle Blasters at Mos Eisley. Grin

Segwit as a means of increasing the blocksize remains a non starter to me. Whether segwit is the best way to address the issues above also remains to be seen, but the regardless blocksize issue should be taken out of the analysis.