Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Re: Superspace: Scaling Bitcoin Beyond SegWit
by
Kallisteiros
on 28/08/2018, 10:07:36 UTC
Congrats on reaching the "over 1000 posts" mark!  Smiley

I don't think there is any consensus that we actually want to increase the block size any further for now - that is the main reason why extension blocks have not been deployed.
You can hardly find 100% consensus about anything these days, but I think there is a need. Every day I see topics here with people complaining about the block size and freaking out about the thought that full block incident could happen again on the next bull run.

I also remember conversations happening pre-SegWit, some people were also saying there's no need to increase the block size any further than 1mb and therefore no need for SegWit, and it got rolled out anyway, as a compromise solution. Likewise, there is no harm in rolling out superspace/extension blocks, and it would actually be a better compromise solution. All I'm saying, if we're doing this anyway, why not go all the way?

Quote
The hard problem is not how to do it technically, but whether we need to do it or whether we should stick to what we have now with Segwit and scale on layer 2 instead.
How optimistic are you about when layer 2 solutions will become usable? I am working on one implementation of LN, and I see some questions, like routing and liquidity, are still in the air. This does not diminish the existing efforts of developers, of course, we've come a long way, but we're still somewhere in the middle.

Quote
While the block-size increase was one of the effects of Segwit, it was not the only and perhaps not the most important one.  Segwit also solves transaction malleability in an elegant way, which makes the implementation of layer-2 techniques (including Lightning) easier.
Of course, and I did mention that. However, SegWit was sold to the community mostly as the backward-compatible block increase solution, and that aspect of it caught the most attention.