Bitmain antminer u3 usb bitcoin miner 63 ghspoilers
43 comments
Dice bot coming soon bot for compact
New technology will be deployed when it is ready and has been tested. However, we believe the following is a reasonable schedule for the specific improvements described in the roadmap. IBLTs and weak blocks: This improvement is accomplished by spreading bandwidth usage out over time for full nodes, which means IBLT and weak blocks may allow for safer future increases to the max block size.
The current proposal for soft fork segregated witness segwit replaces the block size limit with a new block cost limit, counting each byte of witness data as 1 unit of cost and UTXO transaction data as 4 units; as a result, the maximum size of a block becomes just under 4 MB. However, blocks are not expected to consist entirely of witness data, so blocks near 4 MB in size would be unlikely. According to some calculations performed by Anthony Towns, a block filled with standard single-signature P2PKH transactions would be about 1.
It is further likely that future scaling improvements, such as Lightning, may slightly improve the ratio such that filled blocks become larger than 2 MB. Some ideas are easy to explain but hard to execute. Other ideas are easy to execute but hard to explain. Segregated witness segwit seems to be the latter. Segwit can be deployed incrementally without breaking compatibility, so no significant preparation of the ecosystem is necessary.
Developers who want immediate hands-on experience with segwit have begun to test their software on the segwit testnet deployed Dec Initially, only miners who wish to support it need to upgrade in order to activate it and enforce it on the mainnet.
Existing applications only need to change if they wish to take advantage of the new features and additional block space. Segregated witness transactions will require lower fees, will afford much greater performance optimizations, and can support multistage smart contracts and protocols such as bi-directional payment channels that can scale without writing extra data to the blockchain.
Wallets are strongly encouraged to upgrade but can continue to operate without modification as the deployment does not break backwards compatibility. The simplest code modification would be a hard fork to update that line to say, for example, 2,, bytes 2 MB. Miners, merchants, developers, and users have never deployed a non-emergency hard fork, so techniques for safely deploying them have not been tested.
Hard forks require all full nodes to upgrade or everyone who uses that node may lose money. This includes the node operator, if they use it to protect their wallet, as well as lightweight clients who get their data from the node.
Even a single-line change such as increasing the maximum block size has effects on other parts of the code, some of which are undesirable. In 2 MB blocks, a 2 MB transaction can be constructed that may take over 10 minutes to validate which opens up dangerous denial-of-service attack vectors. Other lines of code would need to be changed to prevent these problems. Despite these considerable complications, with sufficient precautions, none of them is fatal to a hard fork, and we do expect to make hard forks in the future.
Segwit does require more changes in higher level software stacks than a simple block size increase, but if we truly want to see bitcoin scale, far more invasive changes will be needed anyway, and segwit will gently encourage people to upgrade to more scalable models right away without forcing them to do so.
Developers, miners, and the community have accrued significant experience deploying soft forks, and we believe segwit can be deployed at least as fast, and probably more securely, than a hard fork that increases the maximum block size.
That is not part of the roadmap. We currently have the ability to increase the capacity of the system through soft forks that have widespread consensus without any of the complications of a hard fork, as described in an earlier question , so the expectation that there will be an eventual hard fork is not sufficient reason to attempt one now.
In addition to giving us extra transaction capacity, the improvements proposed in the roadmap combined with other technology such as bi-directional payment channels give users the ability to reduce the amount of blockchain space they use on average—effectively increasing the capacity of the Bitcoin system without increasing the amount of full node bandwidth used.
BIP68 and BIP allow bi-directional payment channels to stay open indefinitely, which we expect to vastly reduce the number of payment channel transactions that need to be committed to the blockchain. Segregated witness allows soft forks to change the Bitcoin Script language in ways that could reduce the average size of a transaction, such as using public-key-recovery-from-signatures or Schnorr combined signatures.
Segregated witness permits the creation of compact fraud proofs that may bring the security of Simplified Payment Verification SPV lightweight clients up near to that of full nodes, which may allow the network to function well with fewer full nodes than it can under currently-deployed technology.
The actual effect of these technologies is unknown, but scaling now with a soft fork that has wide consensus allows us to obtain the immediate gains, test and measure the mid-term possibilities, and use that data to formulate long-term plans.
Scripts are hashed twice, first to bits and then to bits. The bit hash will be compatible with existing P2SH addresses, so upgraded wallets will be able to send and receive bitcoins to and from currently existing wallets. Scripts are hashed once to bits. This format will not be compatible with existing wallets but will allow more efficient use of block space and will offer better security due to greater collision resistance.
Each byte of the witness part of a segregated witness segwit transaction will only count as 0. Some people think this means the first transaction they see that spends a particular input is safe, but this is untrue.
The original version of Bitcoin provided people with a way to indicate that they wanted to be able to update their transactions, but Nakamoto had to disable it in to prevent denial-of-service DoS attacks. This feature is planned for Bitcoin Core 0. Weak blocks and IBLTs can both be deployed as network-only enhancements no soft or hard fork required which means that there will probably only be a short time from when testing is completed to when their benefits are available to all upgraded nodes.
We hope this will happen within After deployment, both weak blocks and IBLTs may benefit from a simple non-controversial soft fork canonical transaction ordering , which should be easy to deploy using the BIP9 versionBits system described elsewhere in this FAQ. Most previous soft forks have not provided these benefits to miners either.
The BIP66 strict DER soft fork which activated in July will soon be providing reduced processing time by making it possible to switch to libsecpk1 for validation as described elsewhere in this FAQ. The reduced validation time makes it uncommon among soft forks in that it provides direct benefits to miners. What segregated witness segwit does is provide several major benefits to anyone who uses it to create transactions:.
A permanent fix for third-party malleability, allowing multi-stage smart contracts to flourish. A modest reduction in fees. Easy future upgrades to Bitcoin Script, so wallets can more easily gain access to new features. Segwit and the other improvements in the roadmap provide significant usability enhancements. In addition, segwit allows miners to put more transactions in their blocks, which may allow them to increase their per-block revenue. Start by reading the Bitcoin Core contributor pages on Bitcoin.
In particular, code review is a critical part of getting soft forks deployed. To get specific suggestions on how you can help, please join the bitcoin-dev IRC channel. What specific technologies are included in the roadmap, and when can we expect them? Is the segregated witness soft fork equivalent to a 4 MB block size increase, a 2 MB increase, a 1.
I keep hearing different numbers. Segregated witness sounds complicated; will the ecosystem be prepared for its deployment? Segregated witness still sounds complicated. Why not simply raise the maximum block size?
Will there be a hard fork before or as part of the segregated witness implementation? How will segregated witness transactions work for wallets? If no one is forced to upgrade, why will anyone bother to upgrade?
I heard P2SH took almost two years to become widely deployed. I heard you were breaking zero-confirmation transactions. Which technology in the scaling roadmap is doing that? Recommended View all posts Bitcoin Core 0. BIP34 height in coinbase.