csw

1:04 PM

Anyone ever note that the fee structure in SegWit results in a 3-body calculation problem?

1:05

There is a solution, just have the developers set the fees centrally and tell the miners what they are allowed to earn

joeldalais

1:08 PM

had a good idea on most of the tulip info, but didn't know "When tulip flowers die down, thick mats of leaves cover the ground and prevent the growth of woody weeds and trees.", answers the question i'd wondered for a while

1:09

i used to do medieval re-enactment and like history, so that stuff kinda interests me :slightly_smiling_face:

1:10

ln+segwit+miners?

csw

1:10 PM

Yes.

joeldalais

1:10 PM

ye, messy

1:10

and ye, the 'central' body answer :confused:

phoenix

1:10 PM

minor correction though, first futures contract was by Thales of Militus and recorded by Aristotle :wink: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D1%3Asection%3D1259a

Pinned by newliberty

csw

1:10 PM

Worse, moving validation of the TX (Witness and sig) to a separate field means that miners are incentivised to not validate fully.

1 reply

about 10 hours ago View thread

csw

1:11 PM

:slightly_smiling_face:

1:11

New knowledge :slightly_smiling_face:

joeldalais

1:11 PM

hadn't thought about that :slightly_smiling_face: (edited)

cypherblock

1:11 PM

how incentivised?

joeldalais

1:12 PM

well, if they validate that part of the field then they're just moving some of their potential fee to others

1:12

doesn't make economic sense

cypherblock

1:12 PM

how are they moving some of their fee?

joeldalais

1:13 PM

because segwit would be taking up fees that should otherwise be on the mainchain

csw

1:13 PM

And you can mine without full validation.

cypherblock

1:14 PM

sure you just risk mining invalid blocks

csw

1:14 PM

Not if most miners do the same

cypherblock

1:14 PM

then it is even worse. makes incentive to produce invalid block higher. get everyone to mine on that.

Pinned by newliberty

csw

1:15 PM

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012103.html

1:15

Have a read of Pete's comments

cypherblock

1:16 PM

will do

csw

1:17 PM

And Midnight Mystic

1:17

A "boom" higher than Tulips just decades ago. and it made a profit

1:17

No intervention...

cypherblock

1:22 PM

k, so segwit increases incentive to get block downloads without witness (smaller and can ignore validating sigs) but with the transactions so this next miner can start mining new block with transactions (more fees) as opposed to today where if they do validationless mining it is usually empty block.

csw

1:23 PM

Yes

1:24

And if the majority do this, Core can add and change the protocol without miner consent. (edited)

1:24

Just software updates

cypherblock

1:26 PM

well I am too slow to follow that conclusion.

csw

1:26 PM

If a minority miner does find an invalid block, the majority have an incentive to ignore and move on. Leaving the invalid data

1:27

Changes to script are version differences. These are in the witness data, not the miner validation

joeldalais

1:28 PM

if miners activate segwit they are giving control of all their infrastructure (and funds they've spent on it) to blockstream

csw

1:28 PM

Say, 10% report an invalid block two weeks into the chain... No miner would allow the loss to repair it. At best, the 10% miner has honest chain that is a fork and is dropped.

csw

1:29 PM

csw

1:29 PM

cypherblock

1:30 PM

any chain with invalid block will be ignored by rest of network.

csw

1:30 PM

Now

1:31

If miners are incentivised to not validate...

And witness data is not on most clients?

1:31

How

cypherblock

1:32 PM

most clients will get and validate witness data (except for light clients (spv wallets))

csw

1:33 PM

Really, not what I see from how the code is being implemented.

cypherblock

1:34 PM

most ‘full nodes’ (today’s lingo: non-mining nodes that validate everything) are running segwit compatible code so if it activates then they will get and validate the witness data.