Quote from: franky1 on April 02, 2018, 03:11:22 PM

Quote from: HeRetiK on April 01, 2018, 08:48:54 PM

Legacy and SegWit transactions are sitting side by side resulting in 1MB - 4MB blocks.

i edited the part where your understanding has a grey area that you seem to not have researched enough

[...]

in short. segwit "could" use upto 4mb of data. but that does not mean bitcoin gets 4x the amount of transactions
so please do some research as to why segwits 4mb is not the same as 4mb legacy blocks.. i think it will surprise you

I never claimed that a block full of SegWit transactions has 4x the transaction capacity.

I'm well aware of the structural differences between SegWit and legacy transactions.

To clarify, my point is the following:

With SegWit, the maximum achievable blocksize, in raw data, ie. as bits and bytes that get stored on harddisks and propagated over the network is 4MB.

Yes, if the block is full and contains legacy transactions only it has merely 1MB. If the block is not full because it only contains a handful of transactions it's even less. If the block has part SegWit and part legacy transactions, it's somewhere inbetween.

But those are not the cases that interest us.

The important case is: What's the maximum amount of data that needs to be accounted for when storing and propagating a block. And this case is a block that is 100% filled with SegWit transactions. And that makes a block with roughly 4MB of data, signatures and all. So that is, effectively, the maximum blocksize.

Quote from: franky1 on April 02, 2018, 04:45:46 PM

Quote from: HeRetiK on April 01, 2018, 08:48:54 PM

TCP requires handshakes. Should Bitcoin stop using TCP as one of its base layers?

bitcoin does not need TCP
i can write a private key on a piece of paper and screw it up into a ball and throw it at you.. you then get the funds without needing to shake my hand or agree or require me to ask you to sign for anything.

Did you really just argue that Bitcoin would work just as well without the internet? Grin

It's a fun exercise, but would not be trustless anymore, ie. would lack one of the core properties of Bitcoin.

To expand:

If you hand me a private key as payment I have no guarantee that you don't keep a backup somewhere. Or that you "paid" someone else with the very same private key. In other words, I would need to trust you.

Unlike cash or gold, a private key, being digital data, can be easily copied and thus double-spend. Which is why, in the digital realm, the likes of PoW (or PoS, or PoWhatever) are needed. Which, for better or worse, do need the internet or some other forms of communications channel as a means of data exchange.