@Derek Ross We’ve seen you NACKing BIP-110. ‪Would you considering ACKing removing witness discount?

BIP-?: Removal of Witness Discount — ARTEL 21

‪This proposal removes witness discount introduced by SegWit and replaces the current block weight limit fwith a strict serialized block size limit of 1MB. All transaction data SHALL count equally toward the block size. #bitcoin #bip110

We propose: BIP-XXXX: Removal of Witness Discount and Restoration of Serialized Block Size Limit

BIP-?: Removal of Witness Discount — ARTEL 21

Wasn't SegWit already deployed as a soft fork? How is removing the discount also a soft fork? SegWit was technically a soft fork: old nodes continued to accept blocks because they validated only the stripped serialization (without witness data), which remained within the 1,000,000-byte limit. However, the deployment introduced entirely new consensus concepts that did not exist before: witness data as a separate serialization stream, block weight as a new accounting dimension, virtual size (vsize) as a user-facing abstraction, and the WITNESS_SCALE_FACTOR as an arbitrary multiplier. These concepts were not present in the pre-SegWit protocol. Old nodes did not validate them; they simply did not see them. This proposal removes those added concepts and returns to a single, transparent metric: serialized bytes. The rule change is a soft fork because the valid block set is strictly reduced. Any block valid under a 1,000,000-byte serialized limit is automatically valid under the current weight limit, because weight = stripped_size × 3 + total_size ≤ 4 × total_size ≤ 4,000,000.

@Jack K @PlebNick what is 1MB block size is equivalent in our universe: * One bit associated with a Planck-area element of a horizon — quantum of information. * One Planck area — quantum of information-bearing surface. * One quantum of action (h) — minimum physical event/update. * One irreversible bit erasure (Landauer limit) — minimum entropy increment. * Maximum entropy increase per time step — closest analogue to Bitcoin’s 1 MB/block. ?

Best take as far as I understand Bitcoin atm. @Jack K it would be great to see your recent replies on Nostr to be turned into articles and videos. View quoted note →

@calle what is your take against bip110? Curious to better understand your logic.

Ok, SegWit discount is unethical as it doesn’t price all bytes equally. Is that what people would agree on?

SegWit allowed to apply 22 tons of mass equivalent over Bitcoin chain. Read:

The 0.75 MB Gap — ARTEL 21

@Jack K @The Bitcoin Lens @rambler @LaserEyesPsy @Tauri #bitcoin #segwit #physics

The problem with SegWit is 0.75 MB Gap. Effect is the effect. Write a 1 MB inscription, pay for 0.25 MB, externalize the difference to every node on Earth, forever. You can clearly see the effect of this on the graph. More bytes per satoshi committed since 2017. Read:

The 0.75 MB Gap — ARTEL 21

"The gap. The writer paid for 0.25 MB. The network stored 1.00 MB. The 0.75 MB in between is uncompensated. It is not paid for by the writer's fee. It is not paid for by the miner's revenue. It is not priced anywhere in the consensus rules, the fee market, the wallet UI, or the block explorer. It is paid for, in storage and bandwidth and validation cost, by every full node operator who has ever run Bitcoin Core, present and future, in perpetuity." @Jack K @Tauri @Michael Dunworth @BitcoinIsFuture #bitcoin #bip110 #segwit