another way to describe your "perfectly rational scenario" is "anointed vision."
Nonsense. I am pointing out that incentives are already aligned to make this a non-problem.
Your problem is that you don't know what the fuck your talking about.
Your problem seems to be an inability to reason from first principles.
You aren't even familiar with Gavin's sigop/sighash patch and the situation/history surrounding it,
I've certainly been aware of it, yet am not currently familiar with the (irrelevant) details. Thanks for the background.
GTFO and come back when you are less ignorant of the critical nuances involved in this complex area of non-linearly interacting multidisciplinary subjects.
Go fuck yourself. I'm not going anywhere.
And I am perfectly conversant with "the critical nuances involved in this complex area of non-linearly interacting multidisciplinary subjects." At least, you have provided nothing that rebuts my observation of the fact that mining incentives are already aligned to make the quadratic sig hash
issue a non-
problem.
How about, instead of hurling insults, and non-responsive drivel, you actually engage the topic with reasoning? Incapable?
Accurate sigop/sighash accounting and limits is important, because without it, increasing the block size limit might be dangerous. You can watch my presentation at DevCore last November for the details, but basically Satoshi didnt think hard enough about how transactions are signed, and as a result it is possible to create very large transactions that are very expensive to validate. This commit cleans up some of that technical debt, implementing a new ValidationCostTracker that keeps track of how much work is done to validate transactions and then uses it along with a new limit (MAX_BLOCK_SIGHASH) to make sure nobody can create a very expensive-to-validate block to try to gum up the network.
Nothing in that invalidates my claim that mining incentives are aligned to render this a non-problem. Sure, somebody "can create a very expensive-to-validate block to
try to gum up the network." But they can expect to find their solved block orphaned by another, quicker-to-validate solved block that extends the chain while laggards are still wasting time spinning cycles on trying to validate the aberrant block.
Do not relay or mine excessive sighash transactions
This is a belt-and-suspenders fix to make sure CreateNewBlock() or external mining software can never produce a block that violates the MAX_BLOCK_SIGHASH rule.
It does this by rejecting transactions that do too much signature hashing -- they are not added to the memory pool, and so will not be considered for inclusion in new blocks.
gavinandresen committed on Feb 2, 2016
Umm, are you not a native english speaker? Do you not know what a 'belt and suspenders' fix is?
See? We don't need to ask Gavin anything. He's already rubbished your entire position.
Well, no. Your Gavin quote does not even address my assertion. But nice try, junior.
You'd be aware of that if you read more and played Nostradamus less.
Agan - it is not prediction, it is reasoning.