Peter Rizun on Segwit(coin)


@peerchemist, my be we don’t need to update PPC to v0.6, but directly to SEGWIT2 on PPC ? :slight_smile:

It makes me sad to see that so many in our community, including our project lead, dislike Bitcoin’s Segregated Witness. Our former community members Sandakersman and Chronos have become big blocker shills. The above video was even criticized by Vitalik Buterin, who pointed out that point no. 2 in Peter Rizuns “talk outline” is incorrect.

Segregated Witness is the “decentralization first” strategy, which is exactly the same we have in Peercoin. Bitcoin cash follows the “adoption first” philosophy. That’s the very opposite of Peercoin, with a huge blockchain and few nodes. Satoshis original vision did not take mining centralization into account. Covert Asicboost will be a huge impediment to the redecentralization of mining in Bitcon Cash. Segregated Witness makes Covert Asicboost much less profitable. And yes, Segregated Witness is complicated, but so is Peercoin’s Proof-of-Stake, so I can’t see why any Peercoiner would oppose it.

Luckily, Luke-jr’s UASF pulled the AsicBoosters’ plug just when the system was about to tilt over thanks to the permanent propaganda of big blockers, which was in part paid for by the Asicboosters and by Roger Ver. It is a fact that Bitpay, the Bitcoin ABC team and parity Bitcoin all received money from Bitmain, and probably many more entities. There are also regular paid adverts on reddit/r/bitcoin that promote big blocker content. And that’s very likely just the tip of the iceberg.

Sorry I did not grew up in toxic Bitcoin community to have black ‘n’ white image of the world around me.
In my book Segwit does not mean the opposite of the bigger blocks, or the other way around. In my book scaling is irrelevant as Peercoin is made to be able to handle even 50Mb blocks without damage to it’s economic incentives. The whole block size story is completely irrelevant to Peercoin. And Segwit has nothing to do with the blocksize.

What I’m after is to deduce can Segwit even play nice with PoS. I’m not sure that dropping signatures is smart in our case.

1 Like

Hi Peerchemist,

yes, we do not need Segwit for Peercoin for the foreseeable future. If you think Peter Rizun’s Segwit criticism is viable, then ok - for me his criticism is very far-fetched, and it was just pushed by Big Blockers in the end of July to justify removing Segwit from Bitcoin Cash to be able to continue to mine using Covert Asicboost - the hand that feeds them.

And I just can’t understand how a Peercoin enthusiast can become a promoter of big blocks in Bitcoin, as Big Blocks will destroy the little that is left of Bitcoin’s former decentralization. The Bitcoin core devs are trying to preserve those little remnants of decentralization by keeping blocks small and by enabling Lightening network - whether that will play our or not, it’s worth to at least enable it by implementing Segwit.

Well of course, the permutation of Bitcoin into a miner-monopoly-controlled-currency would be good for Peercoin, as some disappointed Bitcoiners would come to Peercoin. But it would be bad for Cryptocurrencies as a whole if Bitcoin failed so early. And I still hold Bitcoin besides Peercoin, so I don’t want it to fail :slight_smile:

We need to fix txn maleability. At the same time, we dont care about the block size debate. This leaves us with one question: is segwit the most elegant txn mal fix out there? Or is it an overbloated tech with purposes misaligned from solving that one basic problem? I tend to believe that segwit was designed with the blocksize debate in mind, and otzi’s comments only further this line of thinking. Segwit does things other than fix txn mal and they are things that we dont need or want on ppc. So whether it’s good for btc or not doesn’t matter to us, we only cate about whether it’s good for ppc or not. And it looks like ‘not’.


I was talking to @hrobeers earlier today about this and he said he mostly agreed with my quote below. Basically we would adopt scaling solutions for both on-chain and off-chain…

[quote=Sentinelrv]So my understanding is that we want people using the Peercoin blockchain for whatever they want to, as long as they are comfortable paying whatever the fee happens to be.

We’re first going to make the block size dynamic so it can adjust upward and downward when necessary. That will allow for on-chain scaling. Then later on we’re going to make this malleability fix which will allow for off-chain scaling as well.

If the network becomes highly used and the value of Peercoin rises as a result, the transaction fee will also rise along with it and end up costing people more for on-chain transactions. If the fee rises too high to justify on-chain transactions, they would be forced into using off-chain networks instead in order to save money transacting with their PPC or PeerAssets.

People who prefer the security of on-chain transactions and are still comfortable with paying the high fee would continue using the blockchain directly.

So on-chain scaling will be allowed, but as the price rises and the fixed fee costs more, it will eventually automatically force people onto off-chain networks instead, since they are designed for microtransactions and would be more affordable for the average user.

On-chain transactions would end up being used more for moving large amounts of PPC. Once again, I am speaking about once the network is in high demand and the price per PPC is over $100 or $1,000. The fixed fee would act as a way to push transactions off onto off-chain networks where they will be cheaper for the user.[/quote]

So the fixed transaction fee will act as a way to automatically regulate and balance the usage of the network. If the fee is low, lots of people will use the blockchain directly and the block size will be able to automatically adjust upward and downward. If the fee rises along with the price, using the blockchain directly will become more expensive and transactions will start to be pushed to off-chain networks so the users can save money. It is a self-regulating system.

1 Like

I fully agree with this, too. The good thing is that a prospering currency is in the interests of stakeholders in Peercoin, more than in a proof-of-work system, in which some miners seem to care more for short-term profit. So we can expect that Stakeholders will make reasonable decisions about the maximum block size and the transaction fee if any of these need to be changed.

With adaptive block sizes, stakeholders will be able to vote on block sizes by keeping their blocks below or above threshold sizes.

Fees should not be changed, that would lead to major disagreements in the community and possibly chain splits.

Peercoin fees will only become unreasonably high when prices are pumped unreasonably. If the price rises along with value created by the peercoin blockchain, the (0.01PPC/kb) fee will never become “too high”.
Some people argue that at $1000/PPC, fees will become too high. I’d argue that PPC should never reach $1000 unless the $10 fee is considered the right price for a transaction. This is a feature, not a bug!

A fixed block limit will not work on peercoin because there is no fee market. The only way to create such a fee market is by creating minting pools that mint in transactions that pay to the pool, I don’t think we want that.

Segwitcoin (BTC) uses the fixed block size to regulate the fee. IMO peercoin should do the opposite, use the fixed fee to balance the block size.


What is the relationship of the transaction fee to the block size? I thought the transaction fee is that charge everyone must pay to have their transaction included in the generated block. Why would a larger block cause a higher transaction fee?

The opposite. A small block means a larger fee because everyone wants to crowd into a block that’s too small for them all. The fee market is made by artificial scarcity of the block space. We don’t do that in peercoin, instead we have a fair and constant fee and keep the blocksize high to allow anyone a spot in the chain that is willing to pay the standard fee.

Yes, I meant to reply to @hrobeers

IMO peercoin should do the opposite, use the fee to balance the block size.

Not understanding this? Peercoin has no current fee market as the transaction fee is fixed. Adjusting the block size is orthogonal to the current 0.01PPC/kb transaction fee.

No, blocksize and fee are very much linked. By fixing the fee, we force the tunable variable onto the blocksize.

1 Like

Segwit is a terrible hack and we don’t want this on Peercoin.

1 Like

The analysis is excellent:gift:

That is great!