Was reading some older material and came upon this interesting statement by Gavin:
'We also need to fix the O(n2) sighash problem as an additional BIP for ANY blocksize increase. That also argues for a hard fork-- it is much easier to fix it correctly and simplify the consensus code than to continue to apply band-aid fixes on top of something fundamentally broken.'
Bitcoin Unlimited completely ignores sighash attack vector. One (not biggest) of the many reasons why BU hardfork proposal is completely unsatisfactory to me personally.
For basic context sighash is attack vector that quadratically increases as block size is increased.
XT hardfork by Gavin dealt with it somewhat. Classic HF did also but there were some compatibility and implementation challanges and classic and BU now completely dropped any protection for this in their clients.
Another quote from Gavin about segwit:
Segwitness will make the current bottleneck (block propagation) a little worse in the short term, because of the extra fraud-proof data. Benefits well worth the costs.
I am not sure if Gavin still maintains this position.
Finally as I understand segwit will fix quadratic sighash scaling permanently (can somebody confirm this :) ). So not only is segwit an onchain scaling increase, it makes it easier in the future to perform hard fork block size increases.
Just something to think about for our friends at r/btc and Bitcoin Jesus himself.
Please correct me if I misunderstood something or someone :)
Submitted October 29, 2016 at 06:55PM by DanielWilc http://bit.ly/2fqdx45
No comments :
Post a Comment