Re:Lightning Network Skepticism
by maaku on Saturday December 26, 2015 @01:06AM
(#10793449)
Um, I'm not sure why you are pointing to that? ISM is used for soft-fork upgrades, which do not revert existing consensus rules. You can have a ISM vote over a new block size, but old clients will still reject the bigger blocks.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Lightning Network Skepticism
by dontbelieveyou on Saturday December 26, 2015 @01:22AM
(#10793471)
The upgrades are triggered by a super-majority of blocks of a certain version. This version maps to a possible new consensus rule. Block creation is a product of computational work. Therefore there is a precedent for CPUs/ASICs voting on the consensus rules of the system.
> ISM is used for soft-fork upgrades, which do not change existing consensus rules.
"Soft-forks" do change existing consensus rules. Will a miner's v1 blocks be accepted by the majority of the network today?
Which has no relevance to this conversation about BU and block size. Block size is not a parameter you can force on upgraded nodes by soft-fork.
Re:Lightning Network Skepticism
by dontbelieveyou on Saturday December 26, 2015 @02:15AM
(#10793545)
You made the claim that under "Nakamoto consensus" the consensus parameters are not up for a vote. A correction seemed warranted.
> Block size is not a parameter you can force on upgraded nodes by soft-fork.
Isn't this what the Segregated Witness proposal[1] effectively does? The new limit proposed would be 4MB with an expected confirmed transaction throughput increase on the order of 2x.
To quote Pieter:
"Another way of looking at it, is that we raise the block size to 4 MB for the witness part, but the non-witness has same size."
[1] http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/s...