Lerner Offers a Block Size Compromise with Segwit2MB

Security expert with Rootstock Smart Contracts, Sergio Demian lerner, tweeted March 31 about a “Segwit2MB” compromise for the block size concern. Lerner seeks to combine a hard fork with a soft fork as a solution. He meant for this idea to dissolve some of the rampant politicking that is miring the Bitcoin community in verbal warfare.

Also Read: Bitfury Mines a Block Signaling UASF Mandatory Segwit Deployment

He elaborated on these ideas in a mailing list email he released on March 31:

“Segwit2Mb is the project to merge into Bitcoin a minimal patch that aims to untangle the current conflict between different political positions regarding segwit activation vs. an increase of the on-chain blockchain space through a standard block size increase. It is not a new solution, but it should be seen more as a least common denominator.”

Technical Aspects of Segwit2MB; Response and Feedback

Lerner goes on to explain the technical aspects of his project, which is referredLerner Offers a Block Size Compromise with Segwit2MB to as Segwit2MB. He said Segwit2MB takes the Bitcoin protocol as it stands, but it adds a 2MB block size hard-fork that activates only if Segwit activates. He said 95% of miners are signaling this change, but at a later fixed date.

The responses on Lerner’s twitter feed were mixed, and his attempts at a compromise only caused ongoing tensions to flare.

His Twitter followers made comments like these: “Reimplementing SegWit as a hardfork requires at least 6 months of code review. The objective of this is to defuse the conflict,” and “So we are trying to please some politician and their marketing team that decided they just want anything that can green tick to “hard fork.”

He was also challenged by a colleague Matt Corallo, who said that Sergio had not done his homework in terms of what a hard fork implies. In a scathing email response on March 31, Corallo said:

“You appear to have ignored the last two years of Bitcoin hard fork research and understanding, recycling instead BIP 102 from 2015. There are many proposals which have pushed the state of hard fork research much further since then, and you may wish to read some of the posts on this mailing list.”

However, one well known Bitcoin player, Erik Voorhees, lauded Lerner’s potential compromise saying, “I would support this. Would get us SegWit faster, would get decent base block-size for short/medium term scale, and would take all the wind out of the sails of any hostile rebellion such as BU. In other words, this is the kind of proposal that imho is most likely to end the civil war.”

Collaborative Efforts May End the Civil War

Even though Lerner’s compromise has promise, it looks like there is still significant tension in theLerner Offers a Block Size Compromise with Segwit2MB air, because some players in the community are not ready to capitulate. Many of them are still concerned about a hard fork, even if it comes with a Segwit activation.

The FUD is unlikely to dissipate anytime soon, but it is inspirational to see collaborative efforts—like Lerner’s Segwit2MB—materialize in an attempt to squash the current political tug-of-war.

These types of compromise-based projects may be what Bitcoin needs to spur its next phase of evolution, both in terms of the protocol and community diplomacy.

Do you think that Segwit2MB is a viable compromise for the block size problem? 

Images via Shutterstock.

Bitcoin News is growing fast. To reach our global audience, send us a news tip or submit a press release. Let’s work together to help inform the citizens of Earth (and beyond) about this new, important and amazing information network that is Bitcoin.

Sterlin Lujan is a journalist, editor, speaker, anarchist, and essayist. He has been involved with cryptocurrency and Bitcoin since 2012. Sterlin is especially interested in the intersection of psychology and cryptography. He has written on behavioral economics in regards to innovative technology, and was one of the first to write about the emerging field of cryptopsychology on
  • Paul Blacklock

    Why not a SegwitBU fork? Implementing them both is the real solution.

    • xeridea

      Because BU is a crap idea, created for the sole purpose of creating conflict rather than advancing the technology, which has been stagnant for years. Bitcoin is in the stone ages of blockchain tech due to bickering, while many alts are far more advanced, due to coherent communities.

      • Ricky Bickerton

        Can you provide sources of information to confirm such claims, apart from what core / blockstream Dev’s say?

        The entire scaling debate at present goes against what Bitcoin stands for. BU speaking of hard forks and core talking of UASF which is actually a DASF, both trying to FORCE their desire on the community.

        Atm hooray for bcoin.

        I don’t like the flawed arguments from both camps as they never have any real substance and their points can easily be ripped apart. What’s worse is why the bitcoin community is now dealing with the political type BITches, arguing this way or that way, choose 1, forcing the community to split and take a choice, just like governments and politicians do, pick this side or that side but in the end it’s all the same BS. There is no reason why there cannot be segwitBU, apart from blockstream wanting total control.

        What will happen when everyone is using the lighting network all under blockstream control.

        From what I read some of SW code is to take fees away from miners and redistribute them, ie give to blockstream instead.

        And pseudo’s making arguments should be ignored, if they cannot put their name to something then just leave it as the pseudo creator intended, that includes you Peter “shaolinfry” Todd.

        The biggest problem at present is not which is the better software, the problem we have is the methods and tactics both sides are using to gain leverage as they attempt to force their wish on to the community.

        Before any BITches reply, I am completely unbiased and not a naive fanboy.

        • Tracer289

          Only a biased naive fanboy needs to state he is not. Just sayin…
          BTW what do you think of Andreas’ videos on this topic?

        • xeridea

          BU is trying to force their way on community, could do it with only 51%. Segwith takes 95%, so it needs to be nearly unanimous to activate. Segwit significantly mitigates need for BU, and with lightning network on top the blocksize issue would more or less disappear, while BU is just a bandaid on antiquated tech.

      • John

        xeridea, Segwit and BU represent the two possible distractions from the healthy balance of the early Bitcoin: the parasitic direction and centralized direction, respectively. These two forces will emerge (in one form or another) in every altcoin as well, no matter what it looks like. Bitcoin, because of its size, is just the first coin that arrived to this junction in all its severity. Don’t allow the self image of “advanced, coherent communities” which many altcoins sell to affect you so much.

        • xeridea

          I would be ok with SegwitBU if it enabled this silly squable to be settled. I am mainly disgusted by the Bitcoin community who can’t agree on what should be an extremely simple change, while other coins can do fine with complex issues, and advance tech. Bitcoin wants to be the gold standard, but currently it is the laughing stock of crypto, much like the US government in eternal gridlock.

  • MC Kuky

    This “solution” is rubbish.

  • MC Kuky

    This is why I see SegWit as VERY BAD for Bitcoin:

    Corrupt governments and bankers would do anything they can to destroy Bitcoin or if they can’t do that hijack it themselves.

    They are not able to destroy it because the only way to do this is for them to have at least 51% of the hash power of Bitcoin miners, which they can’t get and they know it as that would be just too expensive as they would then have to become the miners themselves and have to invest billions which is to high cost to destroy something and then them lose all their money they invested in their miners.

    But what they can do is, pay few tens of millions to someone (Core team) to make a problem/solution scenario, as they always to with all other things, and Core team has done exactly that… stopped miners to increase block size when needed, which created this problem, and now they will not budge on it.

    Now they want to provide their own “solution” which involves creating a completely new side chain. Think about it… they can’t destroy the main Bitcoin block chain as I explained already, but if they are to create a new one, which people are not aware that its actually a very obvious Trojan Horse, they would effectively get the second option that they could desire… hijacking Bitcoin to their advantage.

    So, do not be fooled by their solution and don’t fall for their propaganda about Bitcoin Unlimited.

    Bitcoin Unlimited are the ones that want to keep Bitcoin in one indestructible chain and just increase block size, which is nothing different to what they have already been doing when needed.

    Core team are paid most likely by the corrupt bankers and institutions that Bitcoin is meant to fight against. If people fall for their propaganda, Bitcoin will be lost and people will not have any more control over it, and it’ll be game over for the freedom of financial corruption.

    People must think before they act, and think with their morals and ethics, and not greed as greed has never created anything good in the world.

    • Erik

      Finally somebody else that can think of a logical reason why things are why are like this (yes I also had this similar theory) I am assuming you also have experience and or knowledge in more than one field as well ?

      • John

        Erik, I read about your solution, which allows both segwit and BIP 100, and I think you are a very smart man. I don’t understand why your proposal is not shouted everywhere and implemented. I never read about this solution ANYWHERE ELSE, and I don’t understand how this relatively simple and ingenious idea hasn’t occurred yet. My opinion is that something like segwit was bound to emerge sometime in a free market, and also something like BU. And while segwit is clearly a mechanism to create parasite middlemen, I also think that BU may eventually lead to centralization. I agree with you that only the non-stop tension between these two extremes (both of which should be allowed) will keep the system in a healthy balance, the fees low enough and the miners reach enough.

        • Erik

          Thank you

          • Tracer289

            You are not Erik Voorheis. Every commenter above this comment is a troll.

          • MC Kuky

            Bette don’t talk about IQ. You don’t have one.
            You are one of those morons that when government tells them bullet did a u-turn in mid air, you believe them.

          • Tracer289

            To your assertion, go to losthorizons dot com and use the search feature at the of the page. look for “bulletin board”. My name is on that list.

            And don’t be mad brah, I think you’re an exceptional troll!

    • Ricky Bickerton

      Exact same thinking, I do think bitcoin users need to start being more vocal with such logic. SW could be the best thing since sliced bread, but due to their antics, I don’t trust core/blockstream. They intentionally created this mess, and they refuse to compromise on a solution, they now ignore the Hong Kong agreement, and they will not disclose who is funding them. Then want segwit so they can get everyone on the lightning network which they will control 100%. Its a bit stupid really as they could have compromised and got segwit active, but they don’t want any on chain scaling as they want everything to move off chain so they can also take the fees, segwit and lightning is all about fees, core claim they want to redistribute fees away from miners, ie in their own pockets, they also want to implement a feature for users to be able to increase their fees after sending a transaction, WTF is that about? Surely such a feature would not be needed if SW fixes everything like they claim and lightning works like it should. Core are being funded and they soon need to start showing some returns, that is why they are now trying to FORCE SW on to the rest of us, even talk of BSUASF which is BS as it is a DASF, users never come into the equation, it’s just devs trying to force their way in. Just like politicians when they start speaking about changes for the people BS. These type of antics go completely against what bitcoin stands for, Core should be ashamed.

  • Patrick Little

    Core is SegWit ready and in use.

    Google segwit and look for current implementation on Core and Unlimited and look for the current segwit status, also it may help to read the BIP version itself. BIP-0141 has a very good README.

    I would place valid links in as I have tried twice before, but were somehow moderated. I can only surmise the moderator and this author do not want you to know the truth. You all should remember how the media treated Bitcoin in the beginning, how they could not stop its climb and spread, then how they climb on board and try to steer it with you being influenced by swiss cheese articles such as this one. Educate yourselves, the best way to change things is to participate in the process: Mining, Full Blockchain relay, if you can, program and solve some crypto transaction issues, do not use wallets and apps that require you to give up your anonymity or remove your knowledge of what address holds your value, and use the blockchain full wallet every time it is possible even when sweeping addresses. At the end of it all, the blockchain must stay valid and secure for any solution to help our monster eliminate corruption and tracking by fiats and support more anonymity and freedom. Anyone who thinks working with fiats is good should research history, it has been bad for everyone, every time. Manage the fiats transactions process their balance and a truth will come out, force, the fiats will use force every time when they cannot inflate or change the true evaluation of their currency. Everyone can admit a soft fork is not the ultimate solution to the block size challenge, but it sure could prepare the chain for it when it will inevitably need an increase. If someone argues for less and not more encryption, you have to question their motives.

    • Patrick Little

      Clearing the FUD around Segwit – Andrew Chow
      BIP 141 – GitHub
      Is Segregated Witness Active Yet?

  • mikecadwill

    I buy and sell bitcoins call for more info on +23481O62119O4

  • Fee bumping is important for splitting your transactions between several new addresses. It is a step toward group pay. As you read there are many ways they have improved and increasing the block size had something else unspoken as a goal.

  • Filosofil

    Depends on the code of the proposal, the proposal linked to is useless as it enforces the segwit weight limit with an additional capacity reduction.