Quote from: jbreher on May 22, 2019, 06:43:56 PM

Quote from: wachtwoord on May 22, 2019, 01:08:22 PM

Quote from: infofront on May 22, 2019, 05:02:27 AM

The immutability of the 1MB blocksize still stands if we throw out the word "protocol". Satoshi knew that once he slipped that blocksize limit into the core client, it would be there forever, and become the de facto standard in all bitcoin software implementations. That's why Garzik and the others were opposed to it at the time. Satoshi said that it was temporary, but he knew enough about game theory to realize 1MB blocks would become a Schelling Point within the bitcoin network if it was left in the core client long enough.

I agree fully with the above but unfortunately the 1MB block size has already been abandoned when segwit was introduced.

Reading between the lines, it appears that infofront may adhere to the following hypothesis:
Once enough value gets bound up in segwit addresses, it becomes an irresistible honeypot. For while those addresses hold value under segwit rules, under the previous protocol rules, they are 'anyonecanspend' transactions. To the extent that the miners collude to roll back the chain, they are free to claim these 'anyonecanspend' TXOUTs for themselves. Every additional UTXO held in a segwit addy is additional incentive for them to behave thusly.

Once done, then the protocol and system would be back to the ersatz immutable 1MB block chain cap.

But hey - we've been over this already.

It's a theory. One which infofront may also not adhere to. Huh

You laid that out pretty well. I'm not as certain as Shelby or TMSR that it will happen though.

My biggest concern with that theory is that the honeypot will be devalued after it's taken by the miners, which reduces the incentive to take it. OTOH, the segwit coin airdrop they'd get might make up for any devaluation of the 1MB chain caused by miners taking the 'anyonecanspend' transactions. And what do you think?