3 ms·
> Instead it is better to optimize for the space already available (Segwit is an example). Segwit doesn't optimize already available space, it bypasses the ori
by oskarkk 2y ago
> Instead it is better to optimize for the space already available (Segwit is an example).
Segwit doesn't optimize already available space, it bypasses the original 1 MB block size limit by moving the transaction signatures outside of the limit (which it does in a way that has some security advantages). Main difference is that it was done as a soft fork, not as a hard fork (which would split the chain). I don't think that you can optimize the size of blocks, as they contain mostly address hashes and signatures.
You can see here that the blocks are bigger than 1 MB: https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts/avg-block-size https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts/avg-block-size
- tromp 2y agoA true example of making better use of available space would be the Mimblewimble protocol, which allows all spent outputs to be permanently erased from history. The integrity of the entire transaction history can be verified from the UTXO set and the history of transaction kernels (just ~100 bytes per tx).
- 65756756 2y agoIt does optimize by removing unnecessary data from the block space yes. Witness data is instead stored outside of the block, but still bound by the same rules. Segwit also introduces the concept of measuring blocks in weight units. So witness data isn't actually calculated as data consuming the block space but is calculated in the total weight unit of the block. It is also important to note that witness data is also limited (4 million weight units per block)