|
|
|
|
|
|
by colordrops
3409 days ago
|
|
|
The block size increase with segwit is marginal and a side effect. It's a complicated feature that is meant for purposes other than block size increase. Don't obfuscate the issue. I'm talking about a simple tweaking of a parameter to increase block size. |
|
|
It's not marginal. According to the mix of current transactions on the bitcoin network, SegWit gives us an effective block size of 2.1MB. Over 2 times more transactions compared to today, which is more than what Bitcoin Classic was pushing for until not too long ago.
https://www.weusecoins.com/eli-segwit/
https://segwit.org/is-segwit-a-block-size-increase-705df6a87...
> and a side effect.
Indeed it is! The main goal of SegWit is fixing the malleability problem, everything else is an bonus.
The other bonuses are pretty awesome themselves, too:
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/
> I'm talking about a simple tweaking of a parameter to increase block size.
A "simple" block-size increase requires an hard-fork, which is anything but simple. Hardforks requires a network-wide coordinated upgrade where everyone updates on the same time, at the risk of a currency split and old nodes being open to attacks if not everyone upgrades in time. Hardforks are highly risky and very very slow to deploy safely.
I recently presented some slides on this topic, the relevant part starts here:
https://www.docdroid.net/TouvFPl/embassy-future-politics-feb...
The same slides, shown as a summary image: https://twitter.com/TraceMayer/status/829558034351398916